Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

I speak fluent German, but don't get German TV here. So I'll concede I'm not in the picture as much as you are.

Well, you certainly seem to generalise me as a 'left wing liberal'. Never heard Birmingham described as a 'bubble'.

Perhaps you need to set the Way Back machine to 1953 to understand why the West is having such a problem with Islam.

Iran in 1950's:



Afghanistan in 1970's:



Turns out many Middle Eastern countries were pretty laid-back Muslim countries before the West took an interest. Now they are hard-core fundies. How did that happen?

Also, reflect on America's relationship with various Middle Eastern countries. Which ones did it always get on with? Which ones did it have a fractious relationship with? Which ones are the more moderate ones, and which ones the more fundamentalist? The answer may surprise you.

 

good post Nexxo

I cashed out my betfair bet for a loss, there is a lot of high level movement against le pen, example facebook and google are mounting an operation under the idea of stopping fake news, yeah right. Cash out was available at £341.45 on my deposit of £400.
I won my last 3 or 4 bridge jump $200 heads up NL sit and go turbos so I am comfortable.


I will be watching the French Election with baited breath, the Euro could be one hell of a thing to day trade in the coming months, how many pips would it be if Le Pen was elected. Euro would drop + 18% in one day and repeat the following day I would expect.

Watching Le Pen win would truly be an epic thing to behold it would dwarf Brexit as it would surely mean the end of the EU.

Does any one know or understand if the EU could continue if France left?

These are some really interesting times.

 

How many Muslims are borderline religious fundamentalists? How easy has it been for first generation Muslim immigrants to integrate in Western society? What relationship does the West have with their families back in their ancestral lands? How do they feel about lies being spread about them? It's not as simple as you think.

Ergo: you're generalising.

Where did I apologise for the actions of fundamentalist Muslims? All I did was point out that there was possibly some exaggeration going on and that, as you yourself say, not all Muslims are bad. I also pointed out that both sides contribute to the relationship.

I'm not apologising; you're condemning. There's a difference. But before we can get to that emotionally satisfactory act of condemnation we first have to go through the messy bit of understanding. What has been happening in the Middle East for the last 50 years (and before: Britain has previous form in warring with Afghanistan) may have something to do with why these fundamentalist Muslims exist in the first place. No apology; just a description of cause and effect.

"Regressive left" = stereotyping. The rest is straw man argument. Let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we?

If we want to be honest with ourselves, we are still applying 1600's parochial politics to a 21st century globalist economy. While you're getting your knickers in a twist about neo-liberals, fundie Muslims and the regressive left, and other people freak out about fascist right-wing nationalists and fundie Christians, there is a bunch of insanely rich industrialists in cahoots with career politicians carving up the world amongst themselves. Divide et impera.

The disenfranchised poor in the UK voted Brexit because foreign billionaires like Rupert Murdoch and Robert Mercer, and British millionaires like Arron Banks and Richard Desmond colluded with career politicians like Nigel Farage and assorted Tories to lie to them that the EU was a liberal elitist hegemony conspiring to take their jobs and homes and give them to fundamentalist Muslim immigrant refugees. The result of Brexit is that prices are rising, citizen rights, environmental and consumer protection regulations are being scrapped and 10% of health and social care professionals may be sent packing. Who benefits in the end? Who is to blame? Follow the money. It's not called the root of all evil for nothing.

 

1 question that I think jrs does not know the answer to is ; who owns the media? and what relationship do they have with each other

 

There's lots of talk about AI and the problems that come with artificial intelligence, does that mean AI is an actual problem?

Maybe i missed it on my cursory glance at the BRA statistics but i couldn't find where they break crime down to nationality, they only seem to do it by age and sex, could you provide a link to where they break it down to nationality please.

Again with the German Statistisches Bundesamt maybe I'm looking at the wrong information as it seems to show that foreigners were suspected of around 500k crimes while Germans where around 1.4m, I'm struggling to find what that works out as a percentage, maybe you could dig out the relevant page.

I'd like to add I'm not calling into question what you've said, it's just I too have noticed how the media can make mountains out of mole hills so I'm just trying to get to the facts.

 

As a psychologist I know how careful you need to be in interpreting such behavioural statistics. Is the rise of crime due to the immigrants, or against the immigrants, or even just coincidental? We know that during global economic austerity crime went up, immigration went up, and both most in poorer areas.

Well, we had pictures and videos of a church burning that did not in fact take place, so YMMV. And while you can suspect the authorities from covering things up, we know for a fact that the media have been making things up.

 

For me that's the problem, without statistics about nationalities committing the crimes it's difficult to know if the correlation you describe accurately reflects the situation or if those sorts of crimes just get more exposure.

I'm not saying there's no correlation but without the supporting evidence it's near impossible (IMO) to draw a definite conclusion, it's a shame authorities are more worried about being PC than making some attempt to quantify the situation.

 

From my perspective it's the other way around, not that i like the term elites as it can mean anything, however if we're talking about politicians as they're the ones who make the rules then I'd say they mostly follow what the people want not the other way around.

The problem isn't that the system is broken or failing it's that the people who make up that system are broken and failing, at least IMO, if you tore down the system and replaced it with something else you'd eventually find yourself back to square one as the systems aren't the problem.

 

I agree. I also agree that there should be an honest debate about immigration and integration, but as you say there are vested interests that wish to discourage that on both sides, and it's all a bit too com-plic-at-ed for the electorate anyway, which is increasingly preoccupied with just trying to survive austerity. Poverty numbs. Understanding, making informed decisions and taking personal responsibility becomes hard. The electorate just looks for someone to Make Everything Better.

Politicians in turn exploit that by promising to be the Big Daddy who will Make Everything Better, which feeds a sense of entitlement. When overblown promises inevitably aren't kept, they present a convenient scapegoat for their failures (It's All Their Fault). All that frustration and disappointment in the electorate finds a satisfying discharge in persecuting the appointed scapegoats, which makes them feel important, powerful and vindicated, and allows them to maintain the fantasy that Big Daddy will Make Everything Better eventually, if only we get rid of the scapegoat.

But of course, there will always be another scapegoat. And another. And another... And meanwhile people get poorer, and more preoccupied with their own survival and more competitive with and resentful of their neighbour. And they keep voting for the next Big Daddy who promises to get rid of the scapegoat for them and finally give them what is their birth right.

So politically the dynamic is created by both the electorate and the politicians.

Exactly.

 

I used to live in Sweden and still have many friends there. Hell, the current Consul General in New York, Lief Pagrotsky, is a friend of a friend. Jag talar Svenksa ocksa.

There's two things you need to bear in mind. 1) Swedes report crime uniquely, especially sexual crimes, that's why Malmo was the rape capital of Europe long before the refugee crisis. 2) Swedes have an increasing neo-nazi element. Google "Stockholm neo-nazis attack children" and you'll see a reason to riot....actually let's make it 3) Remember the Nordic Biker War where whites used mother****ing anti-tank missiles against other whites? Kinda makes those brown people riots look like a pillow fight.

Bottom line is you're using very broad terms, and relatively nominal increases in reported crime (when you consider Sweden's population has increased by 10% over the last decade or so) to paint one side as the problem. That's a dangerous path. Do you want N. Ireland? Because that's how you get N. Ireland.

 

^^^ Out of rep error, but I wish I could write posts as well as you.

 

You're missing the point. These events need to be seen in the context of:



And:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...acks-child-migrants-train-station-Sweden.html

And:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/scandinavia-takes-on-its-gangland-warriors-1357953.html

And remember: Birmingham was apparently a no-go zone too:



I live in Birmingham, and I can assure you it is just an ordinary city.

 

I already did, but this is how you explain it..

 

The first clip appears to be a response to the violence inflicted onto the native population by immigrants.

As for the other part that appears to deal with issues among the native population.

There will always be conflicts within the native population itself at times, and that includes criminal gangs.

 

Nothing says moral high ground like beating up street urchins.

Our violence is morally better than their violence.

Why, how accepting: all people have dicks amongst them. Who knew?

 

I didn't take a moral position. I gave you the correct context of that violence.

No, but it's 'our' violence not imported violence and you will always have ingroup members that do stupid stuff, besides, you don't get to chose your family members. You do however, have a choice in who, and how many, outgroup members you invite into your house.

Correct, yet not an argument for, or defense of, mass immigration and the violence caused by immigrants.

Added.
It doesn't mean you should defend the regressive lefts pathological altruism either. It becomes pathological when it undermines the conditions necessary for maintaining the social structure and native parent culture. As I've said before, they are a bunch of nihilists.

They both depend on, and thrives on, creating the problems they claim to solve, a dog chasing its tail.

 

And so am I.

You can hardly disapprove of visitors arguing in your house when you are having a full-on fist fight.

Well, the regressive right's pathological desire to alienate immigrants hardly helps to achieve the integration that is so desired.

 

Sticking them into Ghettos by the hundreds of thousands with next to zero social mobility like in Paris or Marseille isn't a sensible solution with great long term results.

Everyone but the politicians knows that.

Sure the political left and right may well have different suggestions about what the alternative should be, but that seems to only apply to the population and pre election politicians, cause once they get elected they are immediately happy to ignore the problem.

 

Not just disapprove, but when they proceed to attack the host and the hostess who graciously invited them into their home and took them under their wing, also the right to both kick them out as well as deny other guests right of entry.

Family members will at times fight, again, you don't get to chose them. So they stay.

You're confusing the 'right' with conservatives, just as I've pointed out the regressive left always do. Besides, the guests pretty much alienate themselves when they attack the host and hostess.

As for the regressive left they can never answer the question: how many guests are enough and how many is too many, because they want an open house, and they are happy to trash the house, even burn it down as long as their principles are intact, out of pure misguided pathological altruism they'd do it, because that's all they know how to do.

As I said; They both depend on, and thrives on, creating the problems they claim to solve, a dog chasing its tail.


Edit.
As for the 'right' Nexxo, and I've pointed this out many times before, and since it keep falling on deaf ears in general I'll do it again, the regressive left will give rise to the right. You simply don't get to destroy what took more than centuries to build without some family members, close and extended, getting pissed off, doesn't matter that it's framed as progression. Doesn't work that way.

 

Paragraph 1: Stop apologising.
Paragraph 2: Apology for right wing actions; It's ultimately brown people's fault.
Paragraph 3: There will never be peace in the middle east because of brown people.
Paragraph 4: Easily disproven aphorism.


You watch this on TV. I've lived in a fractured society my whole life, spare the time I spent in Sweden. Your logic simply doesn't add up, and that's why it ends in racism (although I'm sure you think you aren't). There are countless nuances to ethnopolitics that you haven't even begun to consider.