Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

...and a country with legalised slave labour [look at how much stuff is made by those in the privately-run US prison system].

 

You always want to trade and reach trade agreements that benefits your nation Nexxo, some nations will have more to offer than others.

Look at the European Union, where you have lesser nations leeching on greater nations to help pay for their own upkeep.

That's not cool. These lesser nations do not have a right to the greater nations wealth, not in that way.

As for grabbing em by the pu$$y (this will be a metaphor) you can, as long as you have a drafted contract that says you can. Of course, a contract is only valid if BOTH parties understands it. Which is why you "can't" sign a contract with for instance either a minor or a retarded person, and if you do the contract will be null and void.

By the way, England needs to step up and look toward it's own best interests as well.

 

There's something in that.

It's my understanding the EU(UK included of course) keeps a big fat boot on Africa by heavily subsidizing the agri-industry to flood their countries with cheap food.

There's no fair play in trade.

The UK will probably just try and make up economic shortfalls by selling more arms to debatable countries. Oh yay.

 

Some also have more power to demand than others.

That was kind of an explicit part of the contract: wealthier nations supporting the poorer ones in their development. Because in the end, when everyone is stronger, everyone benefits.

I think this is a fundamental philosophical difference between those who want to stay in the EU and those who want to leave. The former believe in the socialist principle that a society that supports everyone, benefits everyone; that standing together is better than standing alone. The latter believe that fending for yourself and standing alone makes you stronger. And it does --until you can't. And then you're ****ed.

A contract is also only valid if both parties have equal power and choice to consent.

Better cancel Brexit then.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-42825916

 

That's a position that comes with having more to offer, meaning; you don't need “them” as much as they need you, sometimes you don't need them at all. In fact, sometimes all they bring with them is need.

Perhaps, and perhaps that was not fully understood at the time, in which case the contract would have to be either revised or ditched altogether.

From my point of view you're talking more about parasitic behavior now, whereby "you" feel entitled to have access to the wealth created by other nations in accordance to that nations own abilities, making your case in altruistic terms in the process. It doesn't matter how fancy it's framed, when all the layers are peeled away that's what it comes down to. Entitlement and parasitic behavior. Leeching. "Oh you OWE me something" or "Oh you have a moral responsibility" etc etc appealing to emotion. It is emotional blackmail.

You can apply this to the scale of friends, same principle, it's one thing to wanna help someone help themselves by empowering them, that's cool and that's a good thing and it's beneficial. It's quite another however, to put them in position of dependency as well as being all altruistic and weak about it not demanding they make an effort, to not demand more, whilst having some twisted sense of responsibility for them. This then leads to a parasitic behavior. It's not healthy, and If you have a friend like that you will eventually have to cut ties with him, because if you don't he will bring YOU down in the end. Same principle applies to the scale of a nation. It doesn't make your nation stronger. It makes it weaker.

Both parties will not have equal power unless they are at equal standing, see the first part of my post, in any case, if equal power is what makes it valid then the EU should be abolished, as for choice to consent that is what you agree to when you sign the contract, you give your consent. No one's holding a gun to your head forcing you to sign.

If you also were the one who initiated the contract in the first place because YOU needed something from someone who didn't NEED something from you, then your position will be weaker still.

 

That kind of undermines the validity of the contract, no? If there is no equality of power, there cannot be valid consent.

Not perhaps; definitely. And the UK understood that quite well, but at the time it was the 'sick man of Europe', so it was happy to benefit. Now it's the second largest economy, and all of a sudden it is not so happy to support poorer member states in turn.

That is how you choose to interpret it, and that comes back to some people believing in supporting each other, because that is the definition of society, and other people believing in looking out for oneself. Which is fine, until you can't.

It is the UK who demanded opt-outs and special treatment. It still expects to have its cake and eat it. All its rage towards the EU is like that of an entitled brat who can't get that if it won't accept the obligations, it can't have the privileges. It is the UK which feels that the EU owes it something: For WWII, for being a net contributor, for buying so much stuff from the EU. It is the UK which appeals to emotion.

And again, that was explicitly the idea behind the EU.

I think that sounds more like the token foreign aid we send to developing countries while at the same time we engage in conflict investment and economic exploitation. The EU doesn't work like that. That was partly why we have Free Movement of people: people are not stuck in their poor country; they can move where the money and opportunities are. That's why the Single Market exists: richer nations cannot force uneven trade agreements on poorer ones; they all trade in the same open market. The beekeeper in Greece can sell his honey as easily and as widely as the farmer in Britain.

You see parasites and leeches; I see a community of fellow human beings. No man is an island.

Power is a gun (and many more things). Lack of power puts you at the mercy of those who have it. The EU evens out power --local government in Belgium can veto a CETA trade deal.

QED. Lack of power puts you at the mercy of those who have it.

 

Not necessarily, but it can be a bit of a gray area, sure.

If England wants to take itself out of the European Union and deny it it's resources it has every right to do so. It will still do trade just not pay for lesser nations upkeep. It is trade that will support these lesser nations and give them the incentive that they need, as they continue to build their nations.

No, it comes back to pointing out the facts on the ground of entitlement being an issue today, way too many entitled people around. “Oh you OWE me something” or “OH you have a moral responsibility” etc As for supporting each other I touched upon that in my previous post where I also made clear that I'm all for it when it's constructive, but vehemently oppose it if it leads to the benefactor being leeched upon, taken advantage of, being emotionally blackmailed. Can be everything from guilt tripping to altruistic preaching or accusations of privilege and racism. It's an extensive list.

It may have been sold as such to the tired and traumatized peoples of Europe after the war, and you didn't meet a conman you didn't like a little bit, it's his stock and trade. Unions Nexxo, are all about dominion and control. The European Union is no different.

I call a spade a spade, we have plenty of parasites and leeches within the community of fellow human beings. I make the distinction and don't allow myself to be either abused or taken advantage of, another benefit of that is that it makes it possible to actually help people in a constructive way. Never allow a taker be in control of a giver.

To each his own Nexxo.

Sometimes lack of power is self-imposed, the mentality of being a helpless victim.

 

Just a quick point please.

Technically England isn't leaving the EU, the U.K. is. 'England' and the 'U.K.' (or 'England' and 'Britain' for that matter) are not interchangeable.

You can test the importance of this distinction by calling a Scot "English" in a pub.

 

That's exactly what it will do only it wont be the government paying for it out of peoples taxes it will be people paying for it directly via the higher cost of goods, those so called lesser nations will still be supported as the only thing to change will be who pays and whose supported.

If that was the case then we should disband the UK, America, Germany, France, and probably every other nation on earth as they're all unions, heck even your family is a union so maybe we should disband that as going on your hypothesis the only reason it exists is so someone can dominate and control it to their advantage and at the expense of lesser members.

 

The point I am making is that the UK was once a beneficiary of the EU; a 'leech' in your terminology. Now it is its turn to support poorer member states, it does not want to. It was happy to take, not so happy to give back. Yet it still wants to keep the benefits. Now who's feeling entitled?

That is not a fact, that is your opinion.

I think Corky42 answered this one. United Kingdom? Union. United States? Union. Your marriage? Union.

I see no con in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. It is quite explicit in its aims, and the UK knowingly signed up.

No you don't. A spade is a physical object; it is a factual reality. You're telling it like you see it. You're expressing your subjective opinion. You're expressing your values. To which you are entitled, but don't dress them up as fact or truth.

Sometimes people just like to blame the victim. Because it's easier to blame someone who is powerless, than someone who is powerful.

 

Point is England is on it's way out and no longer have any obligation to pay for the upkeep of lesser nations, as for leeching some leech more than others, it's a direct consequence of a union made up of nations that aren't equal contributors.

It's a factual based opinion the entire social discourse revolves around it in the west today. “We OWE people something” “We have a moral obligation to...” “You're racist if you don't agree to...”etc. You yourself have repeatedly made these arguments in these forums, so even thou you may not recognize it you are clearly participating.

I'm describing a reality telling it like it is whereas you chose to blind yourself to it when it doesn't conform to your values, then proceed to suggest the reality is subjective when it's pointed out to you.

I did express my values thou, when I made it clear that I'm all for helping people in a constructive way, and when it doesn't leech upon, take advantage of, or abuse me. As I said, never let a taker be in control of a giver. You can go up and down the scale.

Often times people just like to play the victim. Because it's easier for them to blame someone else for their own failures and circumstance, than it is for them to take responsibility for their lives and their own actions. In their minds it abolishes them of any responsibility, and places that on whom ever they deem to be the oppressor of the day.

 

So let me get this right, you're saying it's wrong to belong to a union where not everyone contributes equally?

Because if so how do you square the circle that you live in a union that you're not equally contributing to, i mean for starters i would assume you're not medical trained so you leech of surgeons if you ever need life a life saving operation, I also assume you can't build a CPU, GPU, RAM, or a motherboard so you're using equipment that only exists because you leeched that knowledge and skill from others, then there's the electric you're leeching to run it all.

And before you say how you're not leeching those things because you exchange your services for a currency and in-turn use that as payment for those things it's probably worth question if the services you provide are of an equal contribution to that union called a society as you believe them to be, in other words does society have an obligation to pay for your upkeep, are your services of equally importance to society as those of others?

It seems to me that you're assigning worth to others based on what you believe is of value to you personally without considering the value it may have to others.

 

So the UK can take, and bail when it has to start giving back? Sounds like leeching.

An opinion based on facts is still opinion. "Fact is, the Earth exists, therefore it must have been created by God". Does that prove the existence of God? Of course not. So whatever facts you base your assertions about social discourse on, and whatever you make of what I am supposed to have said, is your opinion, not fact.

I keep telling you: repeating yourself doesn't make it true!

Values are neither truths nor facts.

That would be the UK then, with regard to the EU.

 

I am also curious what Walle's attitude is to people who can't make an equal contribution: the physically or mentally disabled, those with chronic physical or mental illness, the elderly and infirm. All just takers, no?

 

It does seem a peculiar attitude and I'd be interested in learning more so as to understand, what is to me, a very different outlook. How is a contribution quantified, who gets to decide, what happens if someone disagrees with how much value someone, or some country, contributes.

For example I'm a dab hand at painting and decorating so to me personally painters and decorators are of no value, however i also understand that not everyone's like me so knowing a good painter and decorate is probably highly valued by others.

Likewise would the union I'm a member of, the society i live in, consider someone working in the field of theoretical physics as more or less of a leech than a poet? Neither of which appear, on first look, to be professions that i owe anything to or have a moral obligation towards.

 

Indeed. My wife used to be a chef, so she is very critical of the price most restaurants charge for a meal.

Working in the NHS it gets interesting. Do smokers or the obese deserve our scarce health care resources? Do addicts? Do mentally disturbed self-harmers? Do drunks who wrapped their car around a tree, perhaps killing a pedestrian along the way?

How much effort do I invest in a depressed client who appears unmotivated to help themselves? Is the life of an unemployed menial worker worth the same effort and investment of resources as that of a talented engineer, craftsman or clinician? Is someone who is weeks away from dying of cancer worth the same attention and resources as someone who stands a good chance of recovering and leading a full, productive life? What about dementing elderly patients?

I have faced all these questions in my career. And the only answer is, the only answer can be, that everybody is worthy. Any other answer takes us down a slippery slope, until one day that question is asked about you and yours. Ask not for who the bell tolls.

 

The union is voluntary and they've had a referendum, furthermore, the trust agreement is between the nation and its administrator, not to the European Union. Been over the trust agreement in the past, it bears repeating.

Yes, a factual based opinion, sometimes there will be complete or incomplete set of information as you acknowledged using the example of the Earth, sure. Sometimes people will not accept a factual based opinion thou, even when there's is enough information and evidence around to fully support it, and instead resort to emotionally based opinions rather than adhere to factual based opinions because for them what makes them feel better is what matters, then they justify what makes them feel better regardless of the logic. Can be altruism applied to the point of self destruction.

It's not what you've supposed to have said but what you have been clear and consistent with saying, unless what you have expressed in the past wasn't what you meant. I hold that to be unlikely. In any event, perhaps we will revisit those issues and topics in the future.

The truth is not in the repetition, but you can keep telling yourself that

Nice deflection there, a bit too obvious I think.

Been on my block list for well over a year, for some reason keeps posting back to me, go figure. With that out of the way Nexxo...

I don't see mentally disabled people play victims of some imaginary white privileged oppressive male patriarchy for example, which I alluded to in my previous post. One group has legitimate disadvantages to no fault of their own (they were dealt a bad hand) whereas the other group does not! So to answer you question, in part anyway, I would say that If anything those people are entitled takers out of their own free will.They are dead weight! More so than any mentally disabled person could ever be in the context of him not taking out of his own choice, perhaps not even out of his own understanding and free will.

As for the others I don't have time to go over them I have too much on my plate right now, don't expect me to post back any time soon. I'm swamped here. Not to complain. Also, I'm going to try to get off the Internet for a while again, digital detox and all that.

 

I'm just applying your criteria to the situation: the UK was happy to join and take when it was broke; now it is leaving because it doesn't want to support poorer nations in turn. Sounds like leeching to me.

Are you projecting or is this just irony?

Sorry, I am not going to discuss allusions to things you think I have said in the past. Be specific.

The truth is not in the statement, either (but you can keep telling it --as indeed you do).

Again, just applying your criteria here.

Who are playing victims to an imaginary white privileged oppressive male patriarchy, and what does that have to do with the EU?

"I totally talked myself into a corner here, so I am going to bail".

 

This one made me laugh, there's no such thing as a factual based opinion, there's either facts or opinions and yes we often interweave those two premisses into both the spoken and written word but that doesn't magically make an opinion more valid or a fact less so.

I do wish people were better at distinguishing between facts and opinions as it would save a lot of fuss and probably wouldn't have lead to Trump and Brexit in the first place.

Yea i guessed as much ages ago but i just can't resist highlighting your warped and fallacious twaddle. And besides if i didn't chime in once in a while your conversations would end being the walle and Nexo talk show as i assume you can't be bothered to reply to lesser people.