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."
Even if all of that is true (which I guess conservatives must be 100% wrong...
Why should they be automatically assumed to be right? Isn't that a "everybody gets a trophy" thing isn't it?
- Attacks on voting rights - pointless tarrifs and trade wars that are costing Americans stuck with the bill - a President who uses the office to vilify his many many percieved enemies. I saw a chart he hasn't attacked only about 14% of the population. The rest are his enemies. - tax cuts for the rich which leaving a larger tax burden on the middle class - a policy goal of healthance destruction - a policy goal of social security cuts to lessen the effect of the tax cuts for the rich - fearmongering of 'the other' while ignoring the people that are dying due to domestic right wing terrorism inspired by this rhethoric.
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."
I would seriously like to know, as a taxpayer (because that is the line that always get thrown out about social programs) what these troops are supposed to be doing at the border for the next 3 months. As I said, given the 1100 mile starting point as of yesterday, and assuming they can walk 10 miles a day with children (which is being generous), we are looking at an arrival date in 110 days. What are these troops going to be doing until then?? How much is it costing us?? We are being told they SPECIFICALLY being sent to stop the caravan. The caravan is 2-3 months away. If no caravan arrival is imminent, then this is nothing more than the deployment of US troops on Ameican soil for strictly political purposes.
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.
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...
That statement is incorrect. The mass media does not call out Trumps bullshit nearly as often as they should. Furthermore, the focus on his tweets, but not his horrible policies. The problem is that modern media wish to remain "neutral" rather than "objective". For instance, if I say "It's snowing" and you go outside to meet tropical heat, then the objective way of reporting it is to say "DrakeICN is wrong, and here is why". However, modern media would report it this way "DrakeICN says that it is snowing, but his critics say there is tropical heat." When the overton window is so far to the right, and the right refuse to agree on basic facts, any meeting halfways is at best a center-right policy. You could argue that this is better than the extreme right policy, however, that is only true for that one particular issue. Forever more, the right will argue that the center-right is the left - because the left agreed to it - moving the overton window further right and so on and so forth. Even "winning" is losing, when the left surrenders facts to compromise. No, the correct approach is to stonewall the right. This way, the voters will in time understand that all the shit hitting them comes from the right, and NOT from the left and / or center / compromise. Remove the rights excuses and they will in time fall.
"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."
I like your comments on renewable energy. I work for a chemical company so I keep apprised on current technologies myself. I have no problem with renewables as long as they're at least close in price to what we're paying now. What rankled me was this 'carbon tax' BS. Talk about a regressive tax. That would have taken the cake. The Democrats are probably lucky that idea died on the vine.
Btw: the oil industry will not go away just because of renewable energy. Too much of our very existence is tied to petroleum, from plastics, to cosmetics, inks, drugs, lubricants, roads, rocket and airplane fuel, and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now. It will always be one of the most powerful industries.
It's not obvious to me that anti-Semitism is one of Trump's prejudices. To my knowledge, the only generalizing statement he's made relating to Jews was a very old one, decades ago, in which he complained about some of his accountants being black, and that he wanted his accountants to be guys wearing yarmulkes. It's not a great statement for multiple reasons, but that doesn't seem like quite enough.
Trump has criticized Soros, yes, and Soros happens to be the target of a lot of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But unless Trump has directly referenced those specific anti-Semitic ideas, this is more of a "guilt by association" thing. I think it's more accurate to say that anti-Semites have similar ideas as Trump. I think the same holds for Fox and anti-Semitism.
As @Balrog99 has noted, you don't need to know Soros is Jewish to be critical of him. Some of his family members were surprised to learn the man was Jewish.
Personally, I don't see what's so unusual about Soros. He's a philanthropist who also donates to Democrats. Campaign contributions are a corrupting influence on our democracy, but it's not like he's the source of the problem. The ills of our campaign finance system stretch far beyond one man or one party.
Other think about immigration. I was talking with my friend and even if i learn Japanese, is almost impossible to go to Japan with a temporary work visa without a Japanese surname. Japan refuse the great majority of refugees and get naturalization is pretty hard even for people of fully Japanese ancestry who speaks pretty well Japanese. I don't see anyone saying that Japan is a racist country.
I wanna leave my country, but i don't wanna be a parasite living with welfare, i wanna do the proper legal process. Nobody is forced to accept me. I know a colleague who spended a lot of money to get his Italian citizenship and applies on lottery for almost 5 years to live legally on USA and she speaks English pretty well. She din't get into USA by crossing the border and living with welfare in a sanctuary city.
In all honesty, Japan's immigration policies are blatantly racist and xenophobic. They have rigged the system specifically to keep anyone the least bit non-Japanese out of the country, just to maintain ethnic homogeneity. Keeping out minorities is the whole point.
It's not so much Trump is personally an anti-semite (though I believe he is a white supremacist). It's that the white nationalist movements in this country believe he is on their side. And every wink and nudge he sends seems to indicate he knows this.
Now someone will say, "why would he care about such a small number of voters??" Indeed, why would he. He had his chance to repudiate them after Charlottesville and did the exact opposite. And I believe it's because Trump believes the out and out racist vote provides, at the very least, the votes he needs to put him and his party over the top.
In all honesty, Japan's immigration policies are blatantly racist and xenophobic. They have rigged the system specifically to keep anyone the least bit non-Japanese out of the country, just to maintain ethnic homogeneity. Keeping out minorities is the whole point.
Being an island country where space is at a premium and resources are scarce likely has a lot to do with how they are. I don't see how not wanting to let people immigrate and become citizens is 'racist'. Forcing people to move out or putting them into concentration camps is racist.
Btw: the oil industry will not go away just because of renewable energy. Too much of our very existence is tied to petroleum, from plastics, to cosmetics, inks, drugs, lubricants, roads, rocket and airplane fuel, and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now. It will always be one of the most powerful industries.
I agree that it won't disappear and will remain powerful for some time to come. I'm not so certain that will remain the same indefinitely though. Within my lifetime (let's say 30 years or so) I expect the majority of transport worldwide to stop using petroleum and that will have a major impact on lobbying influence of the oil industry. In turn that will have a consequential impact on things like grants & subsidies and research priorities and existing alternatives to most of the uses you list above will also start to look more attractive ...
Btw: the oil industry will not go away just because of renewable energy. Too much of our very existence is tied to petroleum, from plastics, to cosmetics, inks, drugs, lubricants, roads, rocket and airplane fuel, and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now. It will always be one of the most powerful industries.
I agree that it won't disappear and will remain powerful for some time to come. I'm not so certain that will remain the same indefinitely though. Within my lifetime (let's say 30 years or so) I expect the majority of transport worldwide to stop using petroleum and that will have a major impact on lobbying influence of the oil industry. In turn that will have a consequential impact on things like grants & subsidies and research priorities and existing alternatives to most of the uses you list above will also start to look more attractive ...
Just as long as they don't go back to using whale oil...
In all honesty, Japan's immigration policies are blatantly racist and xenophobic. They have rigged the system specifically to keep anyone the least bit non-Japanese out of the country, just to maintain ethnic homogeneity. Keeping out minorities is the whole point.
An small island who did a lot of bad things on WW2 comparable to Germany and USSR are is a serious risk. As i've said, immigration is not a right, is a privilege.
And even if Bolsonaro turns my country in a first world country(very unlikely), i still wanna leave since i hate this weather. I live one of the most cold capitals and still too hot for me. Usually i wake 6am to work out before the sun is too strong. Honestly i rather walk in a hailstorm than in sun.
Not mention, woman in other countries are much more beautiful than in my country. Here i don't even use Tinder, is a waste of time. But on Bariloche, i moved right around 80% of times. The first woman that i started a conversation on a bar as a 9.5/10 redhead with freckles(not sure if she is natural redhead), is interesting how an city with a strong homemade chocolates tradition have so many skinny people.
It's not so much Trump is personally an anti-semite (though I believe he is a white supremacist). It's that the white nationalist movements in this country believe he is on their side. And every wink and nudge he sends seems to indicate he knows this.
Now someone will say, "why would he care about such a small number of voters??" Indeed, why would he. He had his chance to repudiate them after Charlottesville and did the exact opposite. And I believe it's because Trump believes the out and out racist vote provides, at the very least, the votes he needs to put him and his party over the top.
Indeed at Charlottesville the alt-right was chanting "Jews will not replace us!". Trump said they were very fine people.
It's not so much he has been explicitly anti-Semitic but he regularly gets along great with others who have expressed those views. He scapegoats Mexicans, women and others all the time because he thinks it will help him by putting others down. Bottom line: He enables hatred.
Jewish leaders are right to not accept his aid. He is the type that is tries to gain power to through scapegoating and fear mongering of others.
Whether he has explicitly been anti-Semitic or not, Jewish people are keenly aware that it is only a matter of time before YOUR group is the next target.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
In all honesty, Japan's immigration policies are blatantly racist and xenophobic. They have rigged the system specifically to keep anyone the least bit non-Japanese out of the country, just to maintain ethnic homogeneity. Keeping out minorities is the whole point.
Being an island country where space is at a premium and resources are scarce likely has a lot to do with how they are. I don't see how not wanting to let people immigrate and become citizens is 'racist'. Forcing people to move out or putting them into concentration camps is racist.
This is not consistent with Japan's other policies. The Japanese government also encourages its citizens to have more children, which would put more pressure on space and resources (the latter of which is not scarce in Japan, though the former is). If the Japanese government wanted to restrict population size, it would not be encouraging population growth.
It has not been successful at that goal (Japanese birth rates remain extremely low), but it has been encouraging Japanese people to have more children at the same time it restrict the influx of foreigners.
I wonder, is trying to preserve one's culture racism now? I read National Geographic and I love the magazine. It is ironic though how the writers portray these small subset cultures they study as fascinating and worthy of preservation while at the same time they tend to denigrate Western culture.
There is a difference between Japan, an isolationist nation and places like the US and Canada who were built on immigration.
And @SorcererV1ct0r is correct, there is no right to immigration. A country can set whatever policy they want with immigration.
The caravan, once again, isn’t immigration, it’s people looking to claim refugee status. This can only be done on the foreign soil they are attempting to reach.
If we're talking about Japan, I think immigration would change the culture for the simple reason that Japanese culture is extremely xenophobic, and being exposed to foreigners would weaken those prejudices. The positive aspects of Japanese culture aren't going to vanish just because a few extra Koreans join the nation; those virtues are going to spread to the immigrating peoples. But the negative aspects, the ones grounded in ignorance, will fade away.
Compare it to desegregation. Desegregation certainly changed the culture in a lot of previously-white places just like pro-segregation people feared it would at the time. But these days, we generally view that cultural shift as a good thing, and few of us would want to separate the two to "preserve the culture" of either.
Let's put it in concrete terms: What cultural aspects are we worried about losing? How would a given minority take it away?
In general, I'm deeply skeptical of the impulse to separate people by race or culture and such, largely because we've already had lots of them in the States, and these days we laugh at those silly premodern fears. There are valid reasons to oppose immigration (for me, the most convincing one is wage depression due to competition from undocumented labor), but segregating people to "preserve" a certain culture ain't one of them.
It just reminds me of all the times people warned that homosexuals were going to corrupt our kids, that the Chinese weren't going to integrate into "white culture," that the Japanese were secretly loyal to the Empire, that the Irish were going to bring crime, that black folks were going to impregnate our women and make genetically inferior babies, that jazz music and then rock music were going to corrupt our morals. Each one is cloaked in the language of self-defense, but they're all just variants of irrational xenophobia, and all of them are now regarded as nonsense.
What makes this one different from all the others?
In all honesty, Japan's immigration policies are blatantly racist and xenophobic. They have rigged the system specifically to keep anyone the least bit non-Japanese out of the country, just to maintain ethnic homogeneity. Keeping out minorities is the whole point.
But they are not minorities are they?
The language used is really misleading. Japanese are a minority in the world.
Why shouldn't they have a homeland where they have ethnic and cultural homogeneity and ensure that it remains the same with their low birthrate if they want that?
Nobody emigrates because they wake up one day and decided they don't want to live with people like them. They emigrate for financial opportunity, why should the rest of the world provide that at the expense of seeing their countries become multicultural while the places people emigrate from stay the same?
In fact in some cases become far more reactionary, more closed because those who have emigrated and established themselves elsewhere, are rather fond of popping back home and enjoying the fact that nothing has changed. Quite often boast about how the homeland is still the same as they remember. And now because they have money, they get to enjoy the benefits of terrible inequalities and corruption.
The overiding reason for emmigration is money, why is it seen as a good thing that the world is ordered for financial reasons only? Is that all there is that needs to be considered?
Sarah Sanders at the press briefing today refused to rule out either the suspension of habeas corpus OR posse comitatus in regards to the caravan. So, just to recap, 5000 US troops, and a possible suspension of basic fundamental governmental principles to protect against people who are MONTHS away. They are trying to get into the United States for asylum. Whether you agree they should be able to or not is immaterial. The Trump Administration is acting like they are coming to lob bombs over the border. This is beyond reckless.
Sarah Sanders at the press briefing today refused to rule out either the suspension of habeas corpus OR posse comitatus in regards to the caravan. So, just to recap, 5000 US troops, and a possible suspension of basic fundamental governmental principles to protect against people who are MONTHS away. They are trying to get into the United States for asylum. Whether you agree they should be able to or not is immaterial. The Trump Administration is acting like they are coming to lob bombs over the border. This is beyond reckless.
If they want asylum, why are they not claiming it in the countries they are passing through?
Sarah Sanders at the press briefing today refused to rule out either the suspension of habeas corpus OR posse comitatus in regards to the caravan. So, just to recap, 5000 US troops, and a possible suspension of basic fundamental governmental principles to protect against people who are MONTHS away. They are trying to get into the United States for asylum. Whether you agree they should be able to or not is immaterial. The Trump Administration is acting like they are coming to lob bombs over the border. This is beyond reckless.
Juat to add.
The only thing that's reckless is the idea that if you have enough numbers, all laws can be ignored, all need for registration and documents can be ignored and you have the right to march through countries.
Did you not see what happened and is still happening in Europe?
There is a difference between Japan, an isolationist nation and places like the US and Canada who were built on immigration.
And @SorcererV1ct0r is correct, there is no right to immigration. A country can set whatever policy they want with immigration.
The caravan, once again, isn’t immigration, it’s people looking to claim refugee status. This can only be done on the foreign soil they are attempting to reach.
Lets suppose that a Cuban communist dictatorship stroke in my country and i need to leave, i will probably seek to exit an stablish on a neighbor country, i will not walk 8.000 km, passing by some really bad roads to reach mexico(yes, my city is more than 8000km from USA-Mexico border) then try cross a border who is very unsafe to cross and apply to welfare state. I will be safe in a country who is literally one day with a car. I can go to Argentina, Uruguay or Chile in one day if this happens.
This guys if they wanna be refugees, they will apply to refugee status on the first country that they reach. Just like a lot of Venezuelans are moving to neighbor countries.
Anyway, why the mass media who are so "pro refugees" don't complain about Obama’s cruel policy reversal on Cuban refugees
On Thursday, President Obama ended the wetfoot, dryfoot policy and made Cuban refugees “subject to removal,” like undocumented migrants from other countries. They might still gain official refugee or asylum status and be allowed to stay by proving that they have been personally targeted by the government on the basis of their political speech, religion or some other characteristics. But that is extremely difficult in most cases. For most Cubans, like other victims of communist governments, the main injustice they suffer is the everyday oppression meted out to all the regime’s subjects.
Sarah Sanders at the press briefing today refused to rule out either the suspension of habeas corpus OR posse comitatus in regards to the caravan. So, just to recap, 5000 US troops, and a possible suspension of basic fundamental governmental principles to protect against people who are MONTHS away. They are trying to get into the United States for asylum. Whether you agree they should be able to or not is immaterial. The Trump Administration is acting like they are coming to lob bombs over the border. This is beyond reckless.
Juat to add.
The only thing that's reckless is the idea that if you have enough numbers, all laws can be ignored, all need for registration and documents can be ignored and you have the right to march through countries.
Did you not see what happened and is still happening in Europe?
Yeah the spread of far right nationalism is a problem there too.
Here we definitely have the problem of a Republican party with the idea that if you have enough numbers, all laws can be ignored.
In all honesty, Japan's immigration policies are blatantly racist and xenophobic. They have rigged the system specifically to keep anyone the least bit non-Japanese out of the country, just to maintain ethnic homogeneity. Keeping out minorities is the whole point.
But they are not minorities are they?
The language used is really misleading. Japanese are a minority in the world.
Yes, ethnic minorities like Koreans and Chinese are in fact minorities in Japan. That's not a misnomer.
White people are also minorities, but describing white people as a majority isn't misleading if you're talking about the US. Likewise, describing the Japanese as a majority isn't misleading if you're talking about Japan--which we were.
Non-Japanese people are the minority in Japan, comprising 1.5% of the population. If you want to expand the scope, then yes, the Japanese are a minority of the global population. But the Han Chinese are also a global minority despite being the biggest ethnic group on the planet. So are human beings as a whole; we're the minority of the animal kingdom. And vertebrates are also the minority of the animal kingdom. Same goes for the animal kingdom itself, which is a minority of life on the planet. Artificially expanding the scope can make any majority into a minority.
But if we're talking about Japan, then yes: Japanese people are the majority of the Japanese population.
Anyway, why the mass media who are so "pro refugees" don't complain about Obama’s cruel policy reversal on Cuban refugees
On Thursday, President Obama ended the wetfoot, dryfoot policy and made Cuban refugees “subject to removal,” like undocumented migrants from other countries. They might still gain official refugee or asylum status and be allowed to stay by proving that they have been personally targeted by the government on the basis of their political speech, religion or some other characteristics. But that is extremely difficult in most cases. For most Cubans, like other victims of communist governments, the main injustice they suffer is the everyday oppression meted out to all the regime’s subjects.
Unless there's some alternate meaning for the phrase "like undocumented migrants from other countries," it sounds like the Obama administration was removing special treatment given to undocumented Cuban refugees that other refugees did not get--which begs the question of why Cuban refugees were being given special treatment over other refugees in the first place.
Maybe because Cubans tends to vote on republicans??
That might explain special treatment.
Also, your source is from a "pro refugee" source in the mass media: the Washington Post, a well-known left-leaning American newspaper. So apparently the "pro refugee" mass media did complain about this policy.
Sarah Sanders at the press briefing today refused to rule out either the suspension of habeas corpus OR posse comitatus in regards to the caravan. So, just to recap, 5000 US troops, and a possible suspension of basic fundamental governmental principles to protect against people who are MONTHS away. They are trying to get into the United States for asylum. Whether you agree they should be able to or not is immaterial. The Trump Administration is acting like they are coming to lob bombs over the border. This is beyond reckless.
If they want asylum, why are they not claiming it in the countries they are passing through?
I don't know why the part where I said "even if you don't believe they should be able to apply for asylum" is being ignored, but that is not even the point I'm making. Estimates are there are 4000 people in this caravan at most. Sending 5000 troops to the border to "meet" it is 1.25 trained military personal for every single person traveling. Moreover, it is a military action to stop people who aren't in any realm of reality a military threat. And also happen to be over 3 months away. Shit, even IF you viewed a bunch of refugees walking on foot as a serious national security risk, what possible reason is there to send troops 100 days in advance?? It's a political stunt with troops as the pawns. And it should be treated as such.
Shep Smith, the ONE sane voice left at FOX News after all these years (I continue to be mystified how he stays on the air) sums it up:
Sarah Sanders at the press briefing today refused to rule out either the suspension of habeas corpus OR posse comitatus in regards to the caravan. So, just to recap, 5000 US troops, and a possible suspension of basic fundamental governmental principles to protect against people who are MONTHS away. They are trying to get into the United States for asylum. Whether you agree they should be able to or not is immaterial. The Trump Administration is acting like they are coming to lob bombs over the border. This is beyond reckless.
If they want asylum, why are they not claiming it in the countries they are passing through?
I don't know why the part where I said "even if you don't believe they should be able to apply for asylum" is being ignored, but that is not even the point I'm making. Estimates are there are 4000 people in this caravan at most. Sending 5000 troops to the border to "meet" it is 1.25 trained military personal for every single person traveling. Moreover, it is a military action to stop people who aren't in any realm of reality a military threat. And also happen to be over 3 months away. Shit, even IF you viewed a bunch of refugees walking on foot as a serious national security risk, what possible reason is there to send troops 100 days in advance?? It's a political stunt with troops as the pawns. And it should be treated as such.
Shep Smith, the ONE same voice left at FOX News after all these years (I continue to be mystified how he stays on the air) sums it up:
I like your comments on renewable energy. I work for a chemical company so I keep apprised on current technologies myself. I have no problem with renewables as long as they're at least close in price to what we're paying now. What rankled me was this 'carbon tax' BS. Talk about a regressive tax. That would have taken the cake. The Democrats are probably lucky that idea died on the vine.
Btw: the oil industry will not go away just because of renewable energy. Too much of our very existence is tied to petroleum, from plastics, to cosmetics, inks, drugs, lubricants, roads, rocket and airplane fuel, and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now. It will always be one of the most powerful industries.
The fact is that not all the costs of using petroleum are reflected in the price of petroleum.
Second, there was a time that everything we built used lumber and timber. From our transportation to our food, to our buildings, to our energy use.
You ever think about the timber industry as being one of the most powerful industries any more?
Comments
- Attacks on voting rights
- pointless tarrifs and trade wars that are costing Americans stuck with the bill
- a President who uses the office to vilify his many many percieved enemies. I saw a chart he hasn't attacked only about 14% of the population. The rest are his enemies.
- tax cuts for the rich which leaving a larger tax burden on the middle class
- a policy goal of healthance destruction
- a policy goal of social security cuts to lessen the effect of the tax cuts for the rich
- fearmongering of 'the other' while ignoring the people that are dying due to domestic right wing terrorism inspired by this rhethoric.
What's to like?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/opinion/sunday/why-does-donald-trump-keep-dissing-jews.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12095130/donald-trump-anti-semitism
https://forward.com/schmooze/351765/think-trumps-debate-dog-whistle-went-unheard-check-out-10-debate-tweets-fro/
@Grond0 said:
"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."
I like your comments on renewable energy. I work for a chemical company so I keep apprised on current technologies myself. I have no problem with renewables as long as they're at least close in price to what we're paying now. What rankled me was this 'carbon tax' BS. Talk about a regressive tax. That would have taken the cake. The Democrats are probably lucky that idea died on the vine.
Btw: the oil industry will not go away just because of renewable energy. Too much of our very existence is tied to petroleum, from plastics, to cosmetics, inks, drugs, lubricants, roads, rocket and airplane fuel, and probably a lot more that I can't think of right now. It will always be one of the most powerful industries.
Trump has criticized Soros, yes, and Soros happens to be the target of a lot of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But unless Trump has directly referenced those specific anti-Semitic ideas, this is more of a "guilt by association" thing. I think it's more accurate to say that anti-Semites have similar ideas as Trump. I think the same holds for Fox and anti-Semitism.
As @Balrog99 has noted, you don't need to know Soros is Jewish to be critical of him. Some of his family members were surprised to learn the man was Jewish.
Personally, I don't see what's so unusual about Soros. He's a philanthropist who also donates to Democrats. Campaign contributions are a corrupting influence on our democracy, but it's not like he's the source of the problem. The ills of our campaign finance system stretch far beyond one man or one party.
--------------------
Other think about immigration. I was talking with my friend and even if i learn Japanese, is almost impossible to go to Japan with a temporary work visa without a Japanese surname. Japan refuse the great majority of refugees and get naturalization is pretty hard even for people of fully Japanese ancestry who speaks pretty well Japanese. I don't see anyone saying that Japan is a racist country.
I wanna leave my country, but i don't wanna be a parasite living with welfare, i wanna do the proper legal process. Nobody is forced to accept me. I know a colleague who spended a lot of money to get his Italian citizenship and applies on lottery for almost 5 years to live legally on USA and she speaks English pretty well. She din't get into USA by crossing the border and living with welfare in a sanctuary city.
Now someone will say, "why would he care about such a small number of voters??" Indeed, why would he. He had his chance to repudiate them after Charlottesville and did the exact opposite. And I believe it's because Trump believes the out and out racist vote provides, at the very least, the votes he needs to put him and his party over the top.
And even if Bolsonaro turns my country in a first world country(very unlikely), i still wanna leave since i hate this weather. I live one of the most cold capitals and still too hot for me. Usually i wake 6am to work out before the sun is too strong. Honestly i rather walk in a hailstorm than in sun.
Not mention, woman in other countries are much more beautiful than in my country. Here i don't even use Tinder, is a waste of time. But on Bariloche, i moved right around 80% of times. The first woman that i started a conversation on a bar as a 9.5/10 redhead with freckles(not sure if she is natural redhead), is interesting how an city with a strong homemade chocolates tradition have so many skinny people.
It's not so much he has been explicitly anti-Semitic but he regularly gets along great with others who have expressed those views. He scapegoats Mexicans, women and others all the time because he thinks it will help him by putting others down. Bottom line: He enables hatred.
Jewish leaders are right to not accept his aid. He is the type that is tries to gain power to through scapegoating and fear mongering of others.
Whether he has explicitly been anti-Semitic or not, Jewish people are keenly aware that it is only a matter of time before YOUR group is the next target.
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
It has not been successful at that goal (Japanese birth rates remain extremely low), but it has been encouraging Japanese people to have more children at the same time it restrict the influx of foreigners.
And @SorcererV1ct0r is correct, there is no right to immigration. A country can set whatever policy they want with immigration.
The caravan, once again, isn’t immigration, it’s people looking to claim refugee status. This can only be done on the foreign soil they are attempting to reach.
Compare it to desegregation. Desegregation certainly changed the culture in a lot of previously-white places just like pro-segregation people feared it would at the time. But these days, we generally view that cultural shift as a good thing, and few of us would want to separate the two to "preserve the culture" of either.
Let's put it in concrete terms: What cultural aspects are we worried about losing? How would a given minority take it away?
In general, I'm deeply skeptical of the impulse to separate people by race or culture and such, largely because we've already had lots of them in the States, and these days we laugh at those silly premodern fears. There are valid reasons to oppose immigration (for me, the most convincing one is wage depression due to competition from undocumented labor), but segregating people to "preserve" a certain culture ain't one of them.
It just reminds me of all the times people warned that homosexuals were going to corrupt our kids, that the Chinese weren't going to integrate into "white culture," that the Japanese were secretly loyal to the Empire, that the Irish were going to bring crime, that black folks were going to impregnate our women and make genetically inferior babies, that jazz music and then rock music were going to corrupt our morals. Each one is cloaked in the language of self-defense, but they're all just variants of irrational xenophobia, and all of them are now regarded as nonsense.
What makes this one different from all the others?
The language used is really misleading.
Japanese are a minority in the world.
Why shouldn't they have a homeland where they have ethnic and cultural homogeneity and ensure that it remains the same with their low birthrate if they want that?
Nobody emigrates because they wake up one day and decided they don't want to live with people like them. They emigrate for financial opportunity, why should the rest of the world provide that at the expense of seeing their countries become multicultural while the places people emigrate from stay the same?
In fact in some cases become far more reactionary, more closed because those who have emigrated and established themselves elsewhere, are rather fond of popping back home and enjoying the fact that nothing has changed.
Quite often boast about how the homeland is still the same as they remember. And now because they have money, they get to enjoy the benefits of terrible inequalities and corruption.
The overiding reason for emmigration is money, why is it seen as a good thing that the world is ordered for financial reasons only?
Is that all there is that needs to be considered?
The only thing that's reckless is the idea that if you have enough numbers, all laws can be ignored, all need for registration and documents can be ignored and you have the right to march through countries.
Did you not see what happened and is still happening in Europe?
This guys if they wanna be refugees, they will apply to refugee status on the first country that they reach. Just like a lot of Venezuelans are moving to neighbor countries.
Anyway, why the mass media who are so "pro refugees" don't complain about Obama’s cruel policy reversal on Cuban refugees
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/14/obamas-cruel-policy-reversal-on-cuban-refugees/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.26aca45a9b2e
Maybe because Cubans tends to vote on republicans??
Here we definitely have the problem of a Republican party with the idea that if you have enough numbers, all laws can be ignored.
White people are also minorities, but describing white people as a majority isn't misleading if you're talking about the US. Likewise, describing the Japanese as a majority isn't misleading if you're talking about Japan--which we were.
Non-Japanese people are the minority in Japan, comprising 1.5% of the population. If you want to expand the scope, then yes, the Japanese are a minority of the global population. But the Han Chinese are also a global minority despite being the biggest ethnic group on the planet. So are human beings as a whole; we're the minority of the animal kingdom. And vertebrates are also the minority of the animal kingdom. Same goes for the animal kingdom itself, which is a minority of life on the planet. Artificially expanding the scope can make any majority into a minority.
But if we're talking about Japan, then yes: Japanese people are the majority of the Japanese population.
Also, your source is from a "pro refugee" source in the mass media: the Washington Post, a well-known left-leaning American newspaper. So apparently the "pro refugee" mass media did complain about this policy.
Shep Smith, the ONE sane voice left at FOX News after all these years (I continue to be mystified how he stays on the air) sums it up:
Second, there was a time that everything we built used lumber and timber. From our transportation to our food, to our buildings, to our energy use.
You ever think about the timber industry as being one of the most powerful industries any more?