Missing the politics in the "pub"

It is a narrative that is recycled every so often to push a politicians point. Hitler used it effectively to isolate the Jews - I am not acquainting out r politicians with Hitler, just saying it is not a new Narrative.

Eljahara said:

It is a narrative that is recycled every so often to push a politicians point. Hitler used it effectively to isolate the Jews - I am not acquainting out r politicians with Hitler, just saying it is not a new Narrative.

Click to expand...

I know. Just trying to open up some dialogue without bringing up the whole Nazi thing.

NPeteN said:

I know. Just trying to open up some dialogue without bringing up the whole Nazi thing.

Click to expand...

Fair point Pete, probably an ill chosen example.
Here and in the U.S. tapping into people’s fears about immigration has gained a momentum which is difficult to counter using reasoned argument. Despite the obvious benefits, the one/two examples of bad situations involving immigrants gain more media coverage than the literally thousand of positive stories.

Historically all residents of any country in North America ( Excluding Aboriginals ) are descendants of immagrants , and the USA was the Worlds great melting pot ... from which came their economic power ....

Craig said:

Historically all residents of any country in North America ( Excluding Aboriginals ) are descendants of immagrants , and the USA was the Worlds great melting pot ... from which came their economic power ....

Click to expand...

.... when we were an industrial nation... Do you think our economy even vaguely resembles the early 1900's now?

Please, continue your false argument, but hold the "racists don't want immigrants to come here" card to play once you're completely painted yourself into a corner of disproven arguments...

% of immigrants in the US today is roughly the same as it has been throughout history.
Seems many Americans would like the US to return to an industrial nation where immigrant labor would be valuable.

I sympathize with those individuals who hold legitimate concerns regarding immigration, they often get lumped in with the blatant racists. It is VERY hard to be taken seriosuly with a neo-nazi standingbehind you shaking his head in agreement.

It's a shame the media often gives the loudest mouth the biggest microphone. We might see we have more in common than we think if we could just stop all the name calling.

Didn’t realize I was in an argument .... just posting a historical truth ... I apologize if this made you angry .... some history in my Country makes me angry as well ... also should apologize for my spelling !

When people get caught up in political opinion they often forget what the purpose was.

Members of parliament or congress are firstly members of representation for the electorate, that being they are elected to represent the voters of said electorate in the house of parliament or house of representatives so their voice can be heard at a national level. ?
That representative could be a monkey as long as it can speak the language of that nation or territory.

The elected political party is there to serve the nation or country to the best of its ability, not to serve themselves otherwise that would be treason, a crime punishable by hanging once apon a time.

It is easy to not see the wood for the tree's... The party does not matter yet people will blindly follow their belief for better or worse to the point of detriment to their country, any wrong doing will be the other party, be it in the present or past.. Excuses and blame by the supporters and by the parties in power... Anything but accountability or integrity.

Time Warp said:

The elected political party is there to serve the nation or country to the best of its ability, not to serve themselves otherwise that would be treason, a crime punishable by hanging once apon a time.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said with one exception - our political leaders are also there to LEAD - meaning they should possess the intellect to fathom the best path forward for their electorate.
I think this creates the conundrum - what is best for the nation vs what is best to get elected next time.
Unfortunately the latter seems to win too often.
Either that or we have chosen leaders with insufficient intellect to determine the best path.
Very frustrating!

The chosen leaders are often without the intellect to do the job. From an immigrant's point of view (been living in the US since 1968), the method of selection of the candidates is a major problem. After everyone but two of the candidates in the last presidential elections were removed by interim "sub-elections", IMO the electorate got the two dumbest ones from which to select a president. I just hope fervently that the obnoxious bastard that became President last time doesn't get elected next time. Nobody, even Putin, could be worse.

I'm not very fond of the UK's system, where the electorate vote for the parties and the party that wins chooses their leader, but it's not as messy as the US system. I'd like to see the addition of "None of the above" to the candidate list and if that identity won the majority, the election would have to be re-run without the two that were rejected being on the ballot.

At this point in the USA,

Craig said:

Didn’t realize I was in an argument .... just posting a historical truth ... I apologize if this made you angry .... some history in my Country makes me angry as well ... also should apologize for my spelling !

Click to expand...

Craig, nearly every comment implies a narrative which can be a true or false narrative, or a mix thereof. My response to your comment was simply to point out that the previous great wave of immigration to this country came when we were a more industrial economy, so the implied narrative that new waves of immigrants strengthen our economy is not necessarily true now. I believe a mass immigration of poorly educated people of any kind actually hurts the economic opportunities of those americans who are the poorest. I am not angry Craig. I'm just pointing out that what your statement implies may have been overwhelmingly true in the past, but is probably not as true of recent waves of immigration. Having masses of poor, uneducated people pour into a country that has recently passed the ACA and has a strong social welfare system is not a boon to the economy.

If you look at the big picture, there are some opposing policy positions from both parties that don't have any ground on which to compromise.

Immigration is one. If you oppose "open borders" for any reason, almost all democrats call you a racist. They don't even entertain the notion of a practical reason for controlling the flow of people at the border. Personally, I think every culture protects their "border" because there's always an amount of benefit for cultures to have some amount of cohesion through "tribalism" of some sort. This protects their culture, values, and practices from detrimental outside influences. As humans, our shared cultural practices bond us as communities. Without shared values with our neighbors, we are not a cohesive community.

Extended socialism is another. Things like "free" healthcare for all, paid for by some doesn't make sense from a mathematical standpoint, let alone a practical one. Universal basic income is another one of those proposals that seems impossible, yet it is being proposed.

Reparations for american slavery is also being proposed. My family didn't come to this country before 1900. How does that work exactly?

Are we giving the Black Hills back to the Sioux?? Do they have to then give it back to the Cheyenne?? Who do they have to give it back to?

Just about ever topic can be a rabbit hole with multiple bounces of the ball... What effect does a policy have? What's the secondary effect? Tertiary??? and on and on...


A note to Frank Damp who posted while I was typing: You aren't making an argument about Trump, you're just calling him names. If you want to argue that way, then the natural rebuttal to your argument would be, "Well, WTF do you know, You're an idiot" Does that comment seem like a counter argument to you or just returning your insult ??? Make an argument of some type and support it with ideas. Don't keep posting that you hate Trump and call him names. We all know that by now. Use your brain, say something intelligent, make a point that isn't based on your loathing...

Only read part of your informed response .... my post was meant as historical perspective I thought , no mention of what ever is believed by some to be going on now .... offered no opinion of my own, just an observation from a historically friendly neighbour ..... no baiting intended ... a just sayin’ comment ....

Hey Frank,
Let me address a few of the issues you brought up in your response. I'm not an advocate for these programs but perhaps I can shed some light.

Reparations are proposed because as a member of modern American society you have benefitted directly from a system set up to disadvantage African Americans. Its a hard pill to swallow but this is the rationale.

Universal income was proposed because something like 84% of blue collar jobs will be automated within the next 30 years. (Those numbers just from memory) Because robots don't need to sleep, eat, pay rent, have families etc... They don't need wages, those wages should in part be directed into the pockets of the workers whose jobs have been replaced.

Native Americans should be given as much land as they want within reason. Period.

Free healthcare is entirely possible if we prioritize American life over foreign wars.

These are just off the top of my head. There is always a reason NOT to do something, but when it is the right thing to do, we should look for reasons to follow through.

all good answers Pete.

At this point, I wouldn't touch the reparations topic with a 10 foot pole. I think Denzel Washington has stated the situation clearly and precisely.

Universal income because of robots. I never heard that rationale. I remember when we were losing manufacturing jobs, that people said that industries like trucking and importing got a boost, meaning we lost a certain type of job, but also gained them in a different area. Personally, I work for myself most of my life and I've shifted when the marked shifted and apply the skills I have to what the market demands. No robot is going to replace me... no chance of that.

After screwing the Sioux numerous times I think we finally acknowledged it by permanantly ceding them the black hills around 1858 (if I remember correctly) The ironic part is that the Sioux had driven the Cheyenne out of the black hills nearly 100 years earlier to claim it for themselves. I always find that ironic.

I've heard the free healthcare for all would cost less than our military budget. I think the american political class thought for a while that an islamic state that was rich enough could buy a nuke and smuggle it into america in a shipping container, and so they can't fathom anything but having such a strong military presence internationally that smaller countries fear our war making capabilities. Whether this is true or ridiculous, it's an idea that has been around since WWII.

Pete, I appreciate your thoughts...

In Australia, we have had two conservative Prime Ministers who have said : 'we should address issues as they arise and NOT on the basis of what MIGHT' happen'. It seems to me that a major reason for America being so successful has been their excellent approach to risk management. My feeling is the leadership is about setting goals, then doing risk management as part of duty of care. - Lead by example ? - Crisis management should be avoided because it involves short-term, arbitrary decision-making which can lead to grief.

Time Warp said:

... The elected political party is there to serve the nation or country to the best of its ability, not to serve themselves otherwise that would be treason, a crime punishable by hanging once apon a time...

Click to expand...

The prime directive of any elected political party is to retain power. All other goals are secondary.

acotrel said:

In Australia, we have had two conservative Prime Ministers who have said : 'we should address issues as they arise and NOT on the basis of what MIGHT' happen'. It seems to me that a major reason for America being so successful has been their excellent approach to risk management. My feeling is the leadership is about setting goals, then doing risk management as part of duty of care. - Lead by example ? - Crisis management should be avoided because it involves short-term, arbitrary decision-making which can lead to grief.

Click to expand...

Not sure this would apply to pre WW2!!!!!!

Nor post the first Iraqi war when they didn’t go right in and remove that president.

On a new political topic, the election of Scott Morrison as Aussie PM, is another example of how the people are fed up with the elites and the lamestream media, and their arrogant view that they, the elites, know best.

File with Brexit, Yellow Vests, Trump Election ......

Slick

There was also a rich fat bastard (Clive Palmer) inept, but spent $60M AUD advertising, mainly against Labour (Morrison's opponent)
But - it goes to show - can't believe polls!

robs ss said:

There was also a rich fat bastard (Clive Palmer) inept, but spent $60M AUD advertising, mainly against Labour (Morrison's opponent)
But - it goes to show - can't believe polls!

Click to expand...

Can’t believe polls or trolls , eh ?