Which is a sign that democratic institutions have grown too weak and we're tipping into fascism.
Or communism...
This country has always been flirting with fascism, at least since the 1930s. Again, when we talk about fascism we don't always have to use Nazi Germany as the example. That's the worst case scenario. These are the 12 characteristics and warning signs of it, and I'd say we check the box on nearly every one:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism 2. Disdain for human rights 3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause 4. Rampant sexism 5. Controlled mass media 6. Obsession with national security 7. Religion and government intertwined 8. Corporate power protected 9. Labor power suppressed 10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts 11. Obsession with crime and punishment 12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Oddly enough, having free elections doesn't prevent you from being a fascist state.
Which is a sign that democratic institutions have grown too weak and we're tipping into fascism.
Or communism...
---This country has always been flirting with fascism, at least since the 1930s. Again, when we talk about fascism we don't always have to use Nazi Germany as the example. That's the worst case scenario. These are the 12 characteristics and warning signs of it, and I'd say we check the box on nearly every one:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism 2. Disdain for human rights 3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause 4. Rampant sexism 5. Controlled mass media 6. Obsession with national security 7. Religion and government intertwined 8. Corporate power protected 9. Labor power suppressed 10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts 11. Obsession with crime and punishment 12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Oddly enough, having free elections doesn't prevent you from being a fascist state. ---
When in history have those 12 things NOT been rampant?
I guess there wasn't nationalism before nation states arose, but there was regionalism instead.
Religion and politics have been intertwined in every form of government up until very recently.
What government in the past wasn't obsessed with crime & punishment? Isn't that one of the most important reasons for having a government in the first place?
Rampant sexism was much worse in the past than it is today and it was in virtually every society.
Controlled mass media - again, when hasn't it been controlled in some way or another?
Enemies as a unifying cause, national security obsession - isn't that another reason for having a government in the first place?
Rampant cronyism and corruption - what utopian form of government doesn't have this very thing? It's one if the major failings of local, county, state, and national governments on both sides of the spectrum. Hell, even school boards are guilty of this!
Disdain for the arts - not sure this is really a tenet of fascism but whatever.
Labor suppression/Corporate protections - fascists weren't anti-labor so much as anti-communism, also I'd say they integrated corporations into the government itself more than they protected them per se. That's not unique to fascism either.
All I'm trying to say is that by those standards humans have basically been fascist since they started forming governments...
Communism supports abolishment of personal property and the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
I don't think Donald Trump or the Republican government support that position. Do you?
Also, in Russia there are protests going on by the people who are starving, scraping by while the few are swimming in gold. That is what they are going for.
Communism supports abolishment of personal property and the needs of the many over the needs of the few.
I don't think Donald Trump or the Republican government support that position. Do you?
Also, in Russia there are protests going on by the people who are starving, scraping by while the few are swimming in gold. That is what they are going for.
I agree communism promotes those ideals. I also don't think it works. When hasn't it degenerated into tyranny?
Maybe if the Russians grabbed their pitchforks or went on strike like in 1917 instead of 'protesting' they'd actually accomplish something. Protests only seem to work in Western style democracies (and I'd argue they don't even accomplish much in those anymore).
Well true Communism doesn't have a central Government, rather the idea was a communal society where everything was distributed based on communal agreement on need (income, property etc) so even though in history we say there were communist countries, they actually didn't practice true Communism but socialism with some Communist ideals.
Regardless history shows they don't work, a Central Government that oversees and controls everything is a nightmare and devolves into a police state that is so inefficient everyone is starving to death.
In fact Venezuala is the latest in a sad line of socialist countries that have completely collapsed and follows that exact pattern.
Why countries keep repeating histories mistakes is beyond me.
You kind of have to respect and admire the Founding Fathers for having the Common-sense to look back at history to figure out what is the best workable Government, Their writings are brilliant in they discuss models of Government that utterly failed right back to the Greeks.
Socialism and communism are different things. Social Security and medicare is socialism. Our government is not wholly capitalism, it has socialism as part of it.
A good mix of helping people who can't help themselves and capitalism is fine. Too far in either direction can be not good. Unfettered capitalism and you got people dying in the streets.
Healthcare should be socialized. Why? Health insurance companies are middlemen who jack up prices to make a profit. They don't want to insure sick people because they'll lose money, they want to insure healthy people so they can make a profit. And they are incentivized to cover as little as possible so they can keep their profits. There's a reason for all the fine print and it isn't for the consumers benefit.
Insurance in general is a parasitic industry. The only way to make money in insurance is to charge as much as possible every month and provide as little as possible (or refuse to provide anything at all) whenever your customers get hurt. Your customers won't be happy, but that's the only way you make money. It's not like most industries, where providing good products and services at low prices is the best way to make money.
The only reason to buy insurance is because some treatments will flat-out bankrupt the average family. It's the essentially the choice between being having a 100% chance of losing a little money (which you can handle), or a 0.1% chance of losing everything (which you can't).
The reason our privatized, free-market insurance system is so expensive and low-quality is because insurance is only profitable on the customer's loss.
It's not the BROWSER that's the issue, it's the people who actually run your data through. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum (who bought TWC), those people.
They would have to have records of what websites you visited.
Best bet is to switch to encryption such as Tor or VPN to muddy the waters. I am considering doing so, because this is a hell of an invasion of privacy. They might as well kick in the doors and take video of my home for "more targeted advertising".
I have zero faith in consumer rights protection with regards to browsing now. I at least had a LITTLE before now.
With regards to fascism, I'd say the takeover lacks only formality.
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties." -Wikipedia on 'Fascism'
That sounds suspiciously like ultra-hard-line Republicans. I am pissed at the (far) rights' attempts to blend liberalism with socialism with communism, sweep with one big brush, and say that it is the cause of the decline in America.
Liberalism is what MADE America, and strengthened America for over 200 years.
What we have now is effectively one party rule in name as well as fact. All that is stopping Republicans from ramming whatever the hell they want through, such as this violation of privacy, is that they need to have a unified party on bills introduced.
Too many politicians run UNOPPOSED. Too much gerrymandering ensuring this district stays red, this district stays blue, and as a side-effect, worsening ideological divides. Too much money being thrown at BOTH sides.
Insurance in general is a parasitic industry. The only way to make money in insurance is to charge as much as possible every month and provide as little as possible (or refuse to provide anything at all) whenever your customers get hurt. Your customers won't be happy, but that's the only way you make money. It's not like most industries, where providing good products and services at low prices is the best way to make money.
The only reason to buy insurance is because some treatments will flat-out bankrupt the average family. It's the essentially the choice between being having a 100% chance of losing a little money (which you can handle), or a 0.1% chance of losing everything (which you can't).
The reason our privatized, free-market insurance system is so expensive and low-quality is because insurance is only profitable on the customer's loss.
It's completely morally bankrupt, and there is a damn good reason the rest of the civilized world DOESN'T do it this way. Do they pay slightly higher taxes?? Yeah. And when they go to the doctor, they don't have to worry if some bloodsucking HMO is going to turn down their kid's medication refill, or if they are going to cover the treatment for some horrendous disease without pulling out the fine print and telling you to go screw yourself. Making sure everyone is taken care of in this regard is the price most people have decided they are willing to pay in a civilized society. And you know what?? If you make alot of money, one day, if the shoe is on the other foot, and YOU need medical help, we'd all have your back as well. Yeah, it's socialism. It's also basic human decency. Your income should dictate what kind of car you can afford, how big your house is, what kind of electronic toys you can buy. Whether you can afford to go the Bahamas every year. What it SHOULD NOT dictate is whether you live or die. Ask any Canadian or European poster in this thread if they would give up their national health care for what we have in the States. My guess is not a single one will do so.
It's not the BROWSER that's the issue, it's the people who actually run your data through. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Spectrum (who bought TWC), those people.
They would have to have records of what websites you visited.
Best bet is to switch to encryption such as Tor or VPN to muddy the waters. I am considering doing so, because this is a hell of an invasion of privacy. They might as well kick in the doors and take video of my home for "more targeted advertising".
I have zero faith in consumer rights protection with regards to browsing now. I at least had a LITTLE before now.
With regards to fascism, I'd say the takeover lacks only formality.
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties." -Wikipedia on 'Fascism'
That sounds suspiciously like ultra-hard-line Republicans. I am pissed at the (far) rights' attempts to blend liberalism with socialism with communism, sweep with one big brush, and say that it is the cause of the decline in America.
Liberalism is what MADE America, and strengthened America for over 200 years.
What we have now is effectively one party rule in name as well as fact. All that is stopping Republicans from ramming whatever the hell they want through, such as this violation of privacy, is that they need to have a unified party on bills introduced.
Too many politicians run UNOPPOSED. Too much gerrymandering ensuring this district stays red, this district stays blue, and as a side-effect, worsening ideological divides. Too much money being thrown at BOTH sides.
They are completely without morals - sociopaths. Whatever they accuse the left of doing, you can be sure they are doing it - to include their rampant fear of homosexuality. Crusader against voter fraud? Colorado chief of the republican party commits voter fraud.
Only some, many "refugees" got dumped where I live (Sydney's West). Politicians love dumping the garbage in Sydneys West and virtue signal to us how we must tolerate their misbehavior. I really wish politicians would dump criminals, sunni "refugees" and other undesirables in the latte sipping inner city areas for a change....
I will note, given your scare quotes, that even the loathsome, racist Australian government in its own documentation acknowledged that over 90% of refugees arriving by boat were legitimate refugees by the legal definition of the term.
So I rather imagine so are most of the ones that don't arrive by boat.
To my knowledge there is no true "alt-left" parties to vote for in Australia currently. So the ever increasing "alternate/minority" votes from people like me will sway toward the NXT or the alt-right.
But what would one actually be? I am genuinely interested, because given your list of attributes you (erroneously in my view, but that is neither here nor there) put to the Labour party, I cannot imagine what an "alt-left" party would stand for that you would support. No Greens, no socialists, no communists, no feminists, etc.... what's left, literally? I can think of very little that is meaningfully "left" that you would support, given your statements, much less in an extreme form similar to what "alt-right" represents. Labour unions and protectionism would be my best guesses, and a pro-labour "alt-left" would almost have to be very socialist.
To put it more simply, what would be the gist of the hypothetical "alt-left" party's platform, that you would consider supporting? Or is there an "alt-left" party in another country that would be a suitable model?
"In October 2008, Esquire named Congressman Flake one of the Ten Best Members of Congress saying in part, "A true conservative, Flake is as rare as the dodo. Republicans should learn from him, and liberals and libertarians will find in him a strong privacy-rights ally." On Tuesday, March 7th, 2017, Jeff Flake introduced a bill to eliminate FCC Internet Privacy rules that were passed under President Obama."
I will note, given your scare quotes, that even the loathsome, racist Australian government in its own documentation acknowledged that over 90% of refugees arriving by boat were legitimate refugees by the legal definition of the term.
Yeah the same government that claimed an affair seeking Pakistani was a "legitimate" refugee because he was scared of the wrath of his wife lol This is just one of the thousands of examples of our governments so called "legitimate refugee" screenings. Then leftists wonder why Pauline Hanson is gaining so much momentum. Oh well no problem, just dump him here in Sydney's west it really can't get any worse for us...
But what would one actually be? I am genuinely interested, because given your list of attributes you (erroneously in my view, but that is neither here nor there) put to the Labour party, I cannot imagine what an "alt-left" party would stand for that you would support. No Greens, no socialists, no communists, no feminists, etc.... what's left, literally?
A good old fashion John Curtin style pro-working/struggling class Labor government is what will be left I hope.
So yes my ideal alt-left will still be a socialist and protectionist government but it will not reek of the greens, globalism, multiculturalism, eco-socialism, pro-Islamic-refugee, pro-feminism/SJW or political correctness.
I strongly feel Mark Latham would have made the labor party ideal for me as he seems to hates all the things I have mentioned above. So upset that he didn't quite beat the powerhouse John Howard...
Or is there an "alt-left" party in another country that would be a suitable model?
I wish... The mainstream left worldwide (and to a lesser degree the mainstream centre-right) has a lot to learn if it is going to persuade us swing voters and disenfranchised voters to ever vote for them again.
Trump on Tuesday spoke at a reception for Republican and Democratic senators and their spouses in the White House East Room.
Trump began his remarks stating that he had just concluded a “long call” with Defense Secretary James Mattis.
"We just had a call — long call from General Mattis. And, John, I know, is very happy to hear that, but he knows better than anybody, we’re doing very well in Iraq. Our soldiers are fighting and fighting like never before, and the results are very, very good. So I just wanted to let everyone know."
Well great, I'm glad that our soldiers finally decided to fight. Gee thanks.
Trump on Tuesday spoke at a reception for Republican and Democratic senators and their spouses in the White House East Room.
Trump began his remarks stating that he had just concluded a “long call” with Defense Secretary James Mattis.
"We just had a call — long call from General Mattis. And, John, I know, is very happy to hear that, but he knows better than anybody, we’re doing very well in Iraq. Our soldiers are fighting and fighting like never before, and the results are very, very good. So I just wanted to let everyone know."
Well great, I'm glad that our soldiers finally decided to fight. Gee thanks.
Trump never speaks in more than these ridiculous, almost comical generalities that say absolutely nothing. #1 because he has the intellectual capacity of a doorknob and #2 because speaking at a level a 5th grader would find insulting manages to dumb down the national conversation to such depths that it's impossible to even know where to start. He has a innate instinct for knowing what the base of the Republican Party wants to hear and how to cater to it, and that's about it. He got this because over the last decade or so, he has been a massive fan of talk radio (especially Michael Savage) and FOX News. Trump got elected because he figured "hey, I can run a con-job on those people WAY better than these schmucks". Like he has done with his real estate deals, he simply moved in on the work that had already been done, and squatted on the property til they submitted and he became the new landlord. Trump is without a doubt the most effective public bully I've seen in my life.
This is just one of the thousands of examples of our governments so called "legitimate refugee" screenings. Then leftists wonder why Pauline Hanson is gaining so much momentum. Oh well no problem, just dump him here in Sydney's west it really can't get any worse for us...
Well, you know, since it's a proven statistical fact that refugees lower the crime rate and improve the economy in areas they settle, you should probably hope for more of them.
Although personally, I'd like to see more down in the Hunter, where I am. Although maybe I shouldn't wish that on them.
A good old fashion John Curtin style pro-working/struggling class Labor government is what will be left I hope.
So yes my ideal alt-left will still be a socialist and protectionist government but it will not reek of the greens, globalism, multiculturalism, eco-socialism, pro-Islamic-refugee, pro-feminism/SJW or political correctness.
Ah, so what us Canadians would call "prairie populism", for the most part. Thanks, that clears that up.
Though it does show the inadequacy of the "right/left" dichotomy. A nativist, protectionist, anti-environmentalist and anti-social progressiveness party is hardly "left" by the standards of most people who consider themselves left.
"So yes my ideal alt-left will still be a socialist and protectionist government but it will not reek of the greens, globalism, multiculturalism, eco-socialism, pro-Islamic-refugee, pro-feminism/SJW or political correctness."
Couldn't have said it better myself really. Although i'm pro all things eco for the most part. What can I say, i love me some animals, and i would rather not invoke the wrath of the druids.
We should try to help all people but help doesn't only involve trying to absorb every needy person on earth into your nation state
What amazes me still is the amount of male politicians in the EU and US who are very anti immigration actually have wives from other countries. Nearly as bad as that Katie Hopkins creature. She did one decent documentary tho I give her credit for that.
What amazes me still is the amount of male politicians in the EU and US who are very anti immigration actually have wives from other countries. Nearly as bad as that Katie Hopkins creature. She did one decent documentary tho I give her credit for that.
You mean anti-illegal immigration?
I married an Asian, but I am 100% in agreement with Pauline Hanson's old rant against Asian mass-migration that every leftie under the sun called "racist". The problem is like them you are comparing apples to oranges, love for an immigrant has nothing to do with advocating tougher migration policy (aka being a conservative).
The problem is like them you are comparing apples to oranges, love for an immigrant has nothing to do with advocating tougher migration policy (aka being a conservative).
A lot of conservatives don't make the distinction between "good" immigration and "bad" immigration. Maybe most don't.
When the dear leader is giving his campaign rallies or another speech, he never says we need more immigration, does he? He never would say we need more skilled immigrants because our school systems (which he wants to cut) are falling behind to a lot of foreign countries. Nope, across the board it's immigrants bad, they're taking ur jobs, rapists, crime committers!
Trump's been pretty clear his main beef is against illegal immigration.
In terms of Immigration in general, this is a complex issue.
I was watching a demonstration by an immigration expert on the state of immigration of the World in general (very revealing the sheer scope of the problem for 3rd world countries) and he makes a very important point few people discuss.
The people who immigrate to 1st World countries are often the more educated, the more skilled and the more wealthy, relatively speaking we don't get the absolutely poor, destitute and poverty stricken people.
So what that means is that 3rd world countries get a constant brain drain towards 1st World countries, the People who could uplift the 3rd World countries often choose to leave so 3rd World countries become even...more poor and destitute.
And if the goal is to general end poverty, then this is a huge problem because More poor people are born in 3rd world countries by far then 1st World countries take in people from those countries.
I myself am not White, so immigration is a personal choice of circumstance and I'm not really advocating immigrants make a stark choice to remain in 3rd world countries if they can leave for better circumstances (No one is going to weigh the fate of the World against the needs of their immediate family).
But it's just something to think about, that even a humane position of accepting immigrants may not necessarily be beneficial to 3rd World countries and in fact could be detrimental in the long term.
Comments
Which is a sign that democratic institutions have grown too weak and we're tipping into fascism.
Or communism...
Or communism...
I think the country is slipping too far to the right for communism to happen. Thats the extreme left that leads to communism.
Or communism...
This country has always been flirting with fascism, at least since the 1930s. Again, when we talk about fascism we don't always have to use Nazi Germany as the example. That's the worst case scenario. These are the 12 characteristics and warning signs of it, and I'd say we check the box on nearly every one:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Oddly enough, having free elections doesn't prevent you from being a fascist state.
---This country has always been flirting with fascism, at least since the 1930s. Again, when we talk about fascism we don't always have to use Nazi Germany as the example. That's the worst case scenario. These are the 12 characteristics and warning signs of it, and I'd say we check the box on nearly every one:
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Oddly enough, having free elections doesn't prevent you from being a fascist state. ---
When in history have those 12 things NOT been rampant?
I guess there wasn't nationalism before nation states arose, but there was regionalism instead.
Religion and politics have been intertwined in every form of government up until very recently.
What government in the past wasn't obsessed with crime & punishment? Isn't that one of the most important reasons for having a government in the first place?
Rampant sexism was much worse in the past than it is today and it was in virtually every society.
Controlled mass media - again, when hasn't it been controlled in some way or another?
Enemies as a unifying cause, national security obsession - isn't that another reason for having a government in the first place?
Rampant cronyism and corruption - what utopian form of government doesn't have this very thing? It's one if the major failings of local, county, state, and national governments on both sides of the spectrum. Hell, even school boards are guilty of this!
Disdain for the arts - not sure this is really a tenet of fascism but whatever.
Labor suppression/Corporate protections - fascists weren't anti-labor so much as anti-communism, also I'd say they integrated corporations into the government itself more than they protected them per se. That's not unique to fascism either.
All I'm trying to say is that by those standards humans have basically been fascist since they started forming governments...
I don't think Donald Trump or the Republican government support that position. Do you?
Also, in Russia there are protests going on by the people who are starving, scraping by while the few are swimming in gold. That is what they are going for.
Regardless history shows they don't work, a Central Government that oversees and controls everything is a nightmare and devolves into a police state that is so inefficient everyone is starving to death.
In fact Venezuala is the latest in a sad line of socialist countries that have completely collapsed and follows that exact pattern.
Why countries keep repeating histories mistakes is beyond me.
You kind of have to respect and admire the Founding Fathers for having the Common-sense to look back at history to figure out what is the best workable Government, Their writings are brilliant in they discuss models of Government that utterly failed right back to the Greeks.
A good mix of helping people who can't help themselves and capitalism is fine. Too far in either direction can be not good. Unfettered capitalism and you got people dying in the streets.
Healthcare should be socialized. Why? Health insurance companies are middlemen who jack up prices to make a profit. They don't want to insure sick people because they'll lose money, they want to insure healthy people so they can make a profit. And they are incentivized to cover as little as possible so they can keep their profits. There's a reason for all the fine print and it isn't for the consumers benefit.
The only reason to buy insurance is because some treatments will flat-out bankrupt the average family. It's the essentially the choice between being having a 100% chance of losing a little money (which you can handle), or a 0.1% chance of losing everything (which you can't).
The reason our privatized, free-market insurance system is so expensive and low-quality is because insurance is only profitable on the customer's loss.
They would have to have records of what websites you visited.
Best bet is to switch to encryption such as Tor or VPN to muddy the waters. I am considering doing so, because this is a hell of an invasion of privacy. They might as well kick in the doors and take video of my home for "more targeted advertising".
I have zero faith in consumer rights protection with regards to browsing now. I at least had a LITTLE before now.
With regards to fascism, I'd say the takeover lacks only formality.
"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties." -Wikipedia on 'Fascism'
That sounds suspiciously like ultra-hard-line Republicans. I am pissed at the (far) rights' attempts to blend liberalism with socialism with communism, sweep with one big brush, and say that it is the cause of the decline in America.
Liberalism is what MADE America, and strengthened America for over 200 years.
What we have now is effectively one party rule in name as well as fact. All that is stopping Republicans from ramming whatever the hell they want through, such as this violation of privacy, is that they need to have a unified party on bills introduced.
Too many politicians run UNOPPOSED. Too much gerrymandering ensuring this district stays red, this district stays blue, and as a side-effect, worsening ideological divides. Too much money being thrown at BOTH sides.
Democrats win the popular vote nationwide? Doesn't matter, gerrymandered and lose the House of Representatives by ridiculous margins. More people vote for Clinton than for Trump? Doesn't matter electoral college has the GOP's back.
Gerrymandering happens on both sides to some extent but it's a myth that they do it at all equally (hint it's the GOP rigging the system).
So I rather imagine so are most of the ones that don't arrive by boat. But what would one actually be? I am genuinely interested, because given your list of attributes you (erroneously in my view, but that is neither here nor there) put to the Labour party, I cannot imagine what an "alt-left" party would stand for that you would support. No Greens, no socialists, no communists, no feminists, etc.... what's left, literally? I can think of very little that is meaningfully "left" that you would support, given your statements, much less in an extreme form similar to what "alt-right" represents. Labour unions and protectionism would be my best guesses, and a pro-labour "alt-left" would almost have to be very socialist.
To put it more simply, what would be the gist of the hypothetical "alt-left" party's platform, that you would consider supporting? Or is there an "alt-left" party in another country that would be a suitable model?
http://us.cnn.com/2017/03/31/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-signing-walk-out/index.html
Sad.
This is just one of the thousands of examples of our governments so called "legitimate refugee" screenings. Then leftists wonder why Pauline Hanson is gaining so much momentum. Oh well no problem, just dump him here in Sydney's west it really can't get any worse for us... A good old fashion John Curtin style pro-working/struggling class Labor government is what will be left I hope.
So yes my ideal alt-left will still be a socialist and protectionist government but it will not reek of the greens, globalism, multiculturalism, eco-socialism, pro-Islamic-refugee, pro-feminism/SJW or political correctness.
I strongly feel Mark Latham would have made the labor party ideal for me as he seems to hates all the things I have mentioned above. So upset that he didn't quite beat the powerhouse John Howard... I wish... The mainstream left worldwide (and to a lesser degree the mainstream centre-right) has a lot to learn if it is going to persuade us swing voters and disenfranchised voters to ever vote for them again.
Trump began his remarks stating that he had just concluded a “long call” with Defense Secretary James Mattis.
"We just had a call — long call from General Mattis. And, John, I know, is very happy to hear that, but he knows better than anybody, we’re doing very well in Iraq. Our soldiers are fighting and fighting like never before, and the results are very, very good. So I just wanted to let everyone know."
Well great, I'm glad that our soldiers finally decided to fight. Gee thanks.
(even though I know it'll just be to a right-wing rag) Well, you know, since it's a proven statistical fact that refugees lower the crime rate and improve the economy in areas they settle, you should probably hope for more of them.
Although personally, I'd like to see more down in the Hunter, where I am. Although maybe I shouldn't wish that on them. Ah, so what us Canadians would call "prairie populism", for the most part. Thanks, that clears that up.
Though it does show the inadequacy of the "right/left" dichotomy. A nativist, protectionist, anti-environmentalist and anti-social progressiveness party is hardly "left" by the standards of most people who consider themselves left.
Couldn't have said it better myself really. Although i'm pro all things eco for the most part. What can I say, i love me some animals, and i would rather not invoke the wrath of the druids.
We should try to help all people but help doesn't only involve trying to absorb every needy person on earth into your nation state
I married an Asian, but I am 100% in agreement with Pauline Hanson's old rant against Asian mass-migration that every leftie under the sun called "racist". The problem is like them you are comparing apples to oranges, love for an immigrant has nothing to do with advocating tougher migration policy (aka being a conservative).
When the dear leader is giving his campaign rallies or another speech, he never says we need more immigration, does he? He never would say we need more skilled immigrants because our school systems (which he wants to cut) are falling behind to a lot of foreign countries. Nope, across the board it's immigrants bad, they're taking ur jobs, rapists, crime committers!
In terms of Immigration in general, this is a complex issue.
I was watching a demonstration by an immigration expert on the state of immigration of the World in general (very revealing the sheer scope of the problem for 3rd world countries) and he makes a very important point few people discuss.
The people who immigrate to 1st World countries are often the more educated, the more skilled and the more wealthy, relatively speaking we don't get the absolutely poor, destitute and poverty stricken people.
So what that means is that 3rd world countries get a constant brain drain towards 1st World countries, the People who could uplift the 3rd World countries often choose to leave so 3rd World countries become even...more poor and destitute.
And if the goal is to general end poverty, then this is a huge problem because More poor people are born in 3rd world countries by far then 1st World countries take in people from those countries.
I myself am not White, so immigration is a personal choice of circumstance and I'm not really advocating immigrants make a stark choice to remain in 3rd world countries if they can leave for better circumstances (No one is going to weigh the fate of the World against the needs of their immediate family).
But it's just something to think about, that even a humane position of accepting immigrants may not necessarily be beneficial to 3rd World countries and in fact could be detrimental in the long term.
Life isn't a fairy tale.