US Elections: Groper in Chief

[ummester]

54 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Well, Australia is happy enough to take refugees by plane, no matter how far away the country of origin was. I don't think the argument that Australia is far away therefore carries any weight.

When people used to arrive via plane without a visa, they were also detained and deported. For the most part, they no longer arrive via plane without a visa.

We take refugees that have been processed externally as refugees. Basically, we will assist the international community with their refugee placement but are weary of taking people that claim refugee status on their own back. I think it's a reasonable stance.

54 minutes ago, Yukle said:

If you disagree, you still need to explain why it matters, and why I should also agree that it matters.

I told you why it matters to me earlier. I believe there are already too many people in Australia. It's doubled in my lifetime. The more people that exist in a given place, the worse that place becomes. I don't say this with any kind of bias towards any race, just a bias in favour of less people.

If there was a party that said we are stopping all immigration to Australia, until population decreases under 20 mil again, I would vote for them.

54 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Edited to add: I'm discouraged from considering this a real issue because I'm well aware that the arguments keep changing. Originally, especially after Tampa, it was, "THEY MIGHT BE TERRORISTS! :O" Then it became, "They throw their kids overboard!" This turned out to be a lie, so then it became, "They're displacing REAL refugees!" Except Australia made no effort to engage in resettlement camps in Indonesia, India or even Syria. Then it became, "People smuggler are evil and taking advantage of people!" except that it turned out Australia bribed the allegedly evil people to stop them taking passengers.

The arguments keep changing, and it's hard to see a difference between Trump's hysteria about Muslims and Australia's hysteria surrounding refugees

I agree the politics has a lot of BS in it and the stories keep changing. Can't trust politicians on either side to tell the truth.

None of this changes how I feel, however. I feel there are enough people in Australia and any way to stop the influx is a good thing.

Think about it this way, if we can stop all undeclared migration into our country, if we can set up a system where no-one sneaks in off the books, then why is that a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing for any country to have a full knowledge of everyone who enters and leaves? Shouldn't it always remain any countries' sovereign right to be aware of which people are in it, who stays, who goes and by what methods they travel?

[SerHaHa]

Quote

New Zealand are an excellent example of what Australia should do but doesn't. Its active promotion and celebration of Maori cultures is outstanding. I have only been there once and I loved how wonderfully Indigenous cultures were embraced.

Very true. I worked with a lot of Kiwi's in Afghanistan, and I've visited both the North and South of NZ in both 1988 with my pipe band and again in 2013 for a funeral for a co worker.  Seeing how Kiwi's integrate the Maori traditions, particularly the Haka, is inspiring to me, and what multiculturalism is truly, and truly should be about.  I've never heard a Maori complain about a "white" person doing the Haka, nor met a white Kiwi soldier or person who gaffed about it.  It's not a thing of race, it's a thing of honor, respecting the true natives of their nation, and again, integrating their traditions and culture into the greater social structure. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 hours ago, Sivin said:

You mentioned the other day a constitutional convention. How would representation for such a thing work?

I know I offered to kiss and make up last night, but if you look at that information Commodore so smugly supplied and see anything other than a clear Republican supermajority you are being delusional at best.

I may not know how long House seats are held, but I do know that Democrats do not show up at midterms. 

 If you are giving up two years out, you are being defeatist to an extreme.

Look at all this anger the past two days. The protests that are occurring despite the fact that he hasn't even taken office yet. If half that energy is devoted to a constructive cause (the midterms) then I believe this can be turned around. It is alarming to me that so many Democrats stayed home in the face of this Toad being elected. I'm promising myself to get more involved in the run up to the midterms. I'm going to volunteer for a local Dem candidate. Don't know who that is yet, but it is going to happen.

[Sivin]

37 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 If you are giving up two years out, you are being defeatist to an extreme.

Look at all this anger the past two days. The protests that are occurring despite the fact that he hasn't even taken office yet. If half that energy is devoted to a constructive cause (the midterms) then I believe this can be turned around. It is alarming to me that so many Democrats stayed home in the face of this Toad being elected. I'm promising myself to get more involved in the run up to the midterms. I'm going to volunteer for a local Dem candidate. Don't know who that is yet, but it is going to happen.

Gonna send me to the gulag comrade?

I'll be the biggest Democrat cheerleader in the world from now on. Volunteering is now my mission, and if Pence takes away my vote I'll carry decent straight white males to the booth on my goddamn back.

But the midterms can be regarded as nothing more than a backs to the wall last stand until some Republicans are vulnerable in the general.

[Yukle]

48 minutes ago, ummester said:

When people used to arrive via plane without a visa, they were also detained and deported. For the most part, they no longer arrive via plane without a visa.

We take refugees that have been processed externally as refugees. Basically, we will assist the international community with their refugee placement but are weary of taking people that claim refugee status on their own back. I think it's a reasonable stance.

I told you why it matters to me earlier. I believe there are already too many people in Australia. It's doubled in my lifetime. The more people that exist in a given place, the worse that place becomes. I don't say this with any kind of bias towards any race, just a bias in favour of less people.

If there was a party that said we are stopping all immigration to Australia, until population decreases under 20 mil again, I would vote for them.

...

Think about it this way, if we can stop all undeclared migration into our country, if we can set up a system where no-one sneaks in off the books, then why is that a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing for any country to have a full knowledge of everyone who enters and leaves? Shouldn't it always remain any countries' sovereign right to be aware of which people are in it, who stays, who goes and by what methods they travel?

No way is Australia over populated - 23 million people on an entire continent?! It's not as though the U.S.A. doesn't have deserts or that the British Isles are huge and they have considerably larger populations.

Australia has only five major cities - population expansion doesn't have to be in these areas, though.

Also, as pointed out above, there have been 30,000 refugees arriving by boat. That's not per year, that's in total, forever. You're talking about such small numbers that I'm really not convinced by the argument. Australia's overall birthrate is not enough to raise the population on its own, so taking refugees and lowering the overall migration intake would not have a net impact on its population, even if that is an issue.

I think it's a bad thing to reject refugees because there is a humanitarian reason to help people.

Your arguments don't really sound any different to the, "We don't need more Mexicans," arguments of Trump. He also says they're overloading the country, pouring over the borders, must be stopped at all costs, need a wall, blah blah blah. Sounds the same to me, and sounds like I really don't need to care one way or another.

Countries are just lines on the ground, you know. It's not a particular country's population that matters, that just represents how evenly or unevenly populations are distributed. Developed countries tend to have lower birthrates, so encouraging migration into areas of higher development actually reduces the world's overall population.

[ummester]

31 minutes ago, Yukle said:

No way is Australia over populated - 23 million people on an entire continent?! It's not as though the U.S.A. doesn't have deserts or that the British Isles are huge and they have considerably larger populations.

Australia has only five major cities - population expansion doesn't have to be in these areas, though.

Also, as pointed out above, there have been 30,000 refugees arriving by boat. That's not per year, that's in total, forever. You're talking about such small numbers that I'm really not convinced by the argument. Australia's overall birthrate is not enough to raise the population on its own, so taking refugees and lowering the overall migration intake would not have a net impact on its population, even if that is an issue.

I think it's a bad thing to reject refugees because there is a humanitarian reason to help people.

Your arguments don't really sound any different to the, "We don't need more Mexicans," arguments of Trump. He also says they're overloading the country, pouring over the borders, must be stopped at all costs, need a wall, blah blah blah. Sounds the same to me, and sounds like I really don't need to care one way or another.

Countries are just lines on the ground, you know. It's not a particular country's population that matters, that just represents how evenly or unevenly populations are distributed. Developed countries tend to have lower birthrates, so encouraging migration into areas of higher development actually reduces the world's overall population.

That's fine - I accept all of your points as yours and disagree with them from my point of view. You can have a different opinion, it's how the world works, you know.

12 million people felt like enough when I was young. 24 mill feels like too much to me now. The more space one has, the mentally happier one is, in my opinion. Countries usually make decisions based on the sum opinions of the individuals living in them, not the opinions of people outside of them.

As I think our population needs to decrease, then lower birth rates are a good thing, in my point of view. The only reason I think most Western countries have been importing so many people over the last 20 years is to keep their economic ponzi's functioning - you need to keep stacking more consumers at the bottom of the pyramid. It was never really for altruistic reasons, as you seem to believe. The altruistic, humanitarian reasons for taking so many immigrants were the sales pitch, for us to accept it, nothing more. I think you have just fallen for the sales pitch.

If our government was prepared to spend money on decentralising and creating more cities, then perhaps I would agree population growth has some merits. But it is not, rather it is trying to squeeze what it can into the limited areas already assigned. They are trying to generate what profit they can, for their lobbyist colleagues, and get out before it comes tumbling down. Being this is the case, I see more merit in net population decrease than population growth.

My arguments don't sound different to you because you mind is indoctrinated with a type of bias that prevents you from understanding them.

If 30,00 people makes no difference either way, what are we even discussing? If my country prefers to monitor all immigrants and refuse all of those that come via a certain process, why does it matter to you?

[all swedes are racist]

 ya know, allowing people (especially women) to come to countries where they have more rights and access to family planning options than the countries they come from could help curtail excessive birth rates?

[ummester]

1 minute ago, R'hllor's nasty lobster said:

 ya know, allowing people (especially women) to come to countries where they have more rights and access to family planning options than the countries they come from could help curtail excessive birth rates?

So could a virus that randomly renders 50% of the human population infertile.

[MorgulisMaximus]

Here are the reasons why The Donald is no Hitler:
1. D loves Russians, he even married one
2. D loves Jews, his son in law is his closest advisor
3. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic disaster
D blames Free Trade, Ilegal Immigration, and expensive wars for US economic malaise
4. Hitler wanted Germany to expand its territory
D wants the US to shrink its global ambitions, reduce overseas troops
5. Hitler was a penniless single loser before entering politics
D was billionaire with 3 wives and many children before entering politics

[Tijgy]

51 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Countries are just lines on the ground, you know. It's not a particular country's population that matters, that just represents how evenly or unevenly populations are distributed. Developed countries tend to have lower birthrates, so encouraging migration into areas of higher development actually reduces the world's overall population.

Not really. Countries are more that just lines on the grounds. Countries are built up communities with shared solidarity, legal systems, economic system, education, ... 

When someone comes in your country, you do have the obligation to give these people a place in your community with all the positive and negative consequences.

Really, the idea countries doesn't matter makes absolutely no sense until the world is regulated by the same law, has the same social protection system, ... And the EU did prove currently this isn't possible which is why they went from the desire to harmonize everything to their current policy of mutual recognition. 

[Yukle]

34 minutes ago, ummester said:

That's fine - I accept all of your points as yours and disagree with them from my point of view. You can have a different opinion, it's how the world works, you know.

...

My arguments don't sound different to you because you mind is indoctrinated with a type of bias that prevents you from understanding them.

...

If 30,00 people makes no difference either way, what are we even discussing? If my country prefers to monitor all immigrants and refuse all of those that come via a certain process, why does it matter to you?

I am Australian. The reason it matters to me is because I don't think that it matters at all.

I think your comment about having different points of view is sound, if delivered condescendingly, although somewhat undone by suggesting I'm indoctrinated. I don't mind at all that you disagree. Just tell me why it matters so much, these are such small numbers.

I agree that immigration is not for humanitarian reasons, but I do like the humanitarian consequences of it. It's nothing to do with a sales pitch. I'm actually not sure why it bothers you, either. If you truly want to kick up a fuss about Australia's population, then campaign for a one-child or two-child policy and zero migration. That's a sensible solution to a population increase. However, reducing the very small numbers of refugees arriving by boat makes no difference.

In the meantime, be careful about lambasting Trump when you sound eerily similar - at least in these matters. I assume your views are wildly different to his on women, for instance.

[karaddin]

22 hours ago, mormont said:

I dunno, I think it does quite a bit if you happen to be LGBTQ+. It allows you rights, for one thing. Saves your life, often.
<snip>

Thank you for this, I was fuming and not going to be able to be polite.

15 hours ago, Inigima said:

I just had the fun experience of being yelled at by some *left*-wing asshole on Facebook because I commented about fear of persecution. He saw "white dude" and declare me a hypocrite and "the problem not the solution." (He is also a white dude, according to his picture, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from anyway.) I managed not to call him an asshole, and settled for "Because I'm Jewish, thanks for playing!" As it happens, I'm straight, but if I were gay that wouldn't be immediately obvious either. What a prick.

Honestly I think Jewish has got to be near the top of "rationally fearful from this election result" along with Muslim and visibly transgender. New York is probably one of the safer areas, but that doesn't dismiss the fear.

In all the talk of the need for Trump to have two SCOTUS appointments to really do what he wants, I really really hope Ginsberg has a good security detail around her at all times. A Jewish feminist woman sitting on SCOTUS and preventing them from doing what they want really seems like an at risk person right now, and I'm not suggesting Trump or anyone official would be involved - all it takes is a single white supremacist getting the idea into his head. And naturally it would be dismissed as mental illness after the fact.

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Rampart antisemitism? Are we concerned about the castles now? That said, I think you underestimate the power of realpolitik in deciding factors, as well as how much of a douchebag Netanyahu is.

I wouldn't be surprised if he welcomes at least some level of open antisemitism to help keep himself in power, he's another strong man after all.

On all the "its irrational to fear" bullshit, its really easy to say that you shouldn't worry a politician is going to carry through on oppressing minority groups when you're not that minority group, but when you are? I'd rather not be waiting to see if Trump cares enough to curtail Pence from pursuing an anti-LGBTQI agenda, and I am most definitely afraid of a guy that thinks I should be electrocuted until I say I'm cured of being queer.

5 hours ago, Castel said:

How does the US position on abortion affect you in Australia? 

We're not talking about US foreign policy here. 

And how does that sort of smug "what I want is common sense" actually do or mean? I thought we were retiring smugness as a tool of change? 

Come on dude. You weren't trying to help anyone.Spare us.

For all I think his positions are rubbish, there is actually some truth behind this particular issue. There has been a slow drip of Republican style conservatism from the US to Australia over the last decade, and before anyone thinks I'm talking racism and anti-asylum seeker policy here I'm not...those are entirely our own beasts and the latter we seem to be one of the primary exporters of the attitude to the Western World. More recently I'd say that drip has increased to a steady stream, and here in NSW we had an underhanded attempt at trying to introduce fetal personhood law to attack abortion a couple of years ago. The abortion debate itself is very much over currently, so they can't even try to do it openly but they're still trying this bullshit to attack it that way - it got frame as "protecting mothers when they lose a child in a car accident/domestic violence" even though it would actually carry a lesser sentence than the way its currently charged.

On the rest of the Australian asylum seeker debate going on, I really think that's out of the purview of the US election thread. Illegal immigrants in the US and asylum seekers in Australia are two very different issues, both in nature of the people, the options for entry, and the sheer numbers and comparing them in more than the most basic sense is pointless. There is a lot of rhetoric lacking compassion, but in this Australia is far more hardcore than the US is even close to being even with building a wall.

[Yukle]

3 minutes ago, karaddin said:

On the rest of the Australian asylum seeker debate going on, I really think that's out of the purview of the US election thread. 

Yeah... that's true. You're the second person to point that out. I can't be bothered typing things again, though, so I'll just leave things be.

As for your other points... I'm torn as to how much of an impact American culture has on Australia. In some ways it feels like a drip feed, but it's also hard to tell if the same facets of society causing unrest in America aren't just causing the same thing, independently, in Australia.

For one thing, in terms of recognising same-sex marriage, America is much more progressive than Australia. One the other hand, when it comes to abortion, with the exception of Queensland, it's much less so. And in terms of healthcare, we're a world apart.

[ThinkerX]

8 minutes ago, MorgulisMaximus said:

Here are the reasons why The Donald is no Hitler:
1. D loves Russians, he even married one
2. D loves Jews, his son in law is his closest advisor
3. Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's economic disaster
D blames Free Trade, Ilegal Immigration, and expensive wars for US economic malaise
4. Hitler wanted Germany to expand its territory
D wants the US to shrink its global ambitions, reduce overseas troops
5. Hitler was a penniless single loser before entering politics
D was billionaire with 3 wives and many children before entering politics

Except the more accurate comparison is Mussolini. 

Substitute 'Moslems' for 'Jews.'

And the US basically cannot afford peace at home or abroad.  Only a matter of time until the Donald gets us into a war.  Of course, the same thing would have happened with Clinton. 

 

That said, the Trump supporters at work (of whom there are quite a few) acknowledge the Donald's checkered past, but believe he will now settle down and put the country first.  They see the court cases against him as trivial issues, easily swept aside and without consequences.  His female supporters regard his comments as 'locker room conversation' and profess to not be offended.  They do take offence at the 'sore losers' rioting across the country, and insist their side engaged in no such behavior when the D's were in power. 

 

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Yukle said:

Yeah... that's true. You're the second person to point that out. I can't be bothered typing things again, though, so I'll just leave things be.

As for your other points... I'm torn as to how much of an impact American culture has on Australia. In some ways it feels like a drip feed, but it's also hard to tell if the same facets of society causing unrest in America aren't just causing the same thing, independently, in Australia.

For one thing, in terms of recognising same-sex marriage, America is much more progressive than Australia. One the other hand, when it comes to abortion, with the exception of Queensland, it's much less so. And in terms of healthcare, we're a world apart.

I honestly don't think you can make that comparison with recognising same sex marriage, our political systems are too different and on the national level it happened via a court ruling. Our legislature has been incredibly conservative on this point, but I suspect polling of the general population would show similar if not higher levels of support here.

On the drip feed thing, its not necessarily that I think the country is becoming more conservative, its the style of conservatives we have are becoming more modeled after the Republicans. John Howard wouldn't fit into the Liberal Party anymore.