You're a Trump supporter and Conservative/Republican right? So, the wall was something that you wanted? And now you're getting it fixed up, expanded and the gaps closed, right?
So, isn't that a good thing for you?
I mean, I don't know about you but for example I was not much of a Trump fan when he was in office, but I was thrilled that he was taking China to task on a lot of things towards the end of his Presidency, even if I didn't think he was the best leader, personally.
Is it possible that you prefer the thrill of chasing divisions and criticising "the left" more than you actually want to see the realisation of the policies you support and desire?
And is it also possible that this is a part of the issue to begin with of why the US seems so polarised at the moment?
I don't know about everyone else but I'm pretty exhausted of the "culture war", toxic neomarxism/feminism/identity politics vs science denialism/anti-humanism/religiosity.
Where's the common ground? We've got to all sit down like adult human beings and speak with common sense.
I mean, you're right. Adding pieces to a wall is by definition building a wall. But if that's what you wanted and it saves even one more vitriolic argument, then why be so intent on creating the vitriolic argument? Where is the adult in all of this at this point?
I agree with most of this, but the US was always a secular nation with special protections for freedoms that a lot of other countries at the time didn't have. One of those was freedom to practice any religion, or irreligion.
That being said, I do reckon an agreed upon moral framework is necessary. I won't say objective because I can't be certain objective morals exist. But what I do know from travelling is that Western societies are far more developed, advanced, free and safe than almost all others. So, what is that unifying moral code that helped them get there?
Well, I might argue it's freedom of expression, open debate, individual rights, the rule of law, and self determination under the protection of constitutionally engrained legal axioms. What does that look like on the day to day? Respectful debate; moderation of mind; varied education; individualism; free markets for commerce and ideas; accountable polity; and some unifying force.
America right now is really missing that unifying force element. What unites Western countries and gives them something to strive towards together? That's the big question right now. Whoever finds the answer will rule the free world. But I can tell you that it's no longer Christianity (if it ever was at all).
Perhaps it's the idea of positive endeavour towards creating stable democracies and free societies at home and around the world. That's something that can unite people with the right motivations and speeches and redirections of people's attention Or perhaps it's something else.
But whatever the answer is: at the moment, social media, virulent neomarxism and a slew of other inner problems make common ideals seem naive, even trite to a lot of people.
Too many opinions and not enough mediation, for my taste. Honestly, people need to be willing to conscience firstly that they may be wrong about some hard-held beliefs (not just leftists or rightists but everyone), and secondly, people need a moderating voice, a central man or woman, a third option.
This left-right thing is only getting more polarised and extreme in my view and you're completely right that such a schism destroys countries. So, the question becomes: how can I start bridging ideas and having open, respectful debates, even if it means considering and making concessions to some views or ideas that on first glance make me cringe or recoil.
Surely it's better than the alternative?
Abortion up to a limit - moderate
Common sense regulations on guns for a "well regulated militia" as per Great Amendment Number Two - moderate
Disallowing kids from being maimed by gender nutcases but still allowing adults to be trans if they themselves choose - moderate
Opposing mass migration but still giving people opportunities to come across the border to escape violence and go through proper channels - moderate
Giving women equal pay for equal work but also giving men more rights in divorce and whatnot - moderate
Banning anti-democratic indoctrination in schools but teaching anti-democracy through the lens of the historical failures of communism and authoritarianism in general - moderate (and extremely necessary)
This is what we need, really. Middle ground. A compromise.
This is a pretty simple and correct observation. Guns make killing easier purely by the nature of their proliferation and form. Replace every gun with a knife and you are statistically certain to have less murders, purely because knives are harder to kill people with, especially lots of people at once.
But let's be honest, the States will never abandon guns. The best a sane populace can hope for is a "well regulated militia" as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution states it. But for that, you first need some form of regulation.
I agree America seems to be currently going to hell in a hand-basket and into neomarxist madness but I'm not convinced it's to do with "big corporate America". Seems to me to be more to do with culture war instigated by internet troll armies in authoritarian countries; that and the neofeminist distraction that's being played out in the open nut-house.
Saying that, protections from malicious foreign investment wouldn't hurt the cause of protecting democratic societies. The UK are about to pass a huge bill attempting to future proof the educational system, politics, social media and businesses from neomarxist foreign influence, cancel culture and attacks on freedom of expression, free speech, rule of law and malicious foreign investment. I believe the US government also recently passed some legislation about protecting intellectual property rights and privileged university research from espionage by foreign students (mainly Chinese) and corrupt professors and whatnot.
I can see your point about the communists seemingly playing the Western leaders but I also see the intelligence agencies and lawmakers behind the scenes very lucidly aware of these threats, too.
I hope this whole gender madness and the veil lifting away from "developed China" narratives can open people's eyes a bit.
Anyway, I don't know if you remember me but I left this site a few years ago, moved to an ex communist country, and came back changed.
Check out "wumao" on Google. And down the Rabbit Hole you go.
It depends what you mean by liberalism. Classical liberalism or modern liberalism? Free speech/expression/market based society or neomarxism/neofeminism/identity politics?
Because those are two very different ideological frameworks. The former works well everywhere it has been adopted.
Again, political point-scoring for Republicans is not a valid response to the debate question. America isn't even a full democracy, you fucking retard. It has some of the lowest standards of living in all the developed world.
How about fuck up and answer the debate.
Oh wait ... you have.
Point proven, again.
Isn't that pretty much, not choosing a candidate? Pretty sure there is nobody called "torn up piss paper" running for election.
And are you suggesting that people ought to just choose a candidate, even if they don't believe in them?
How about no.
Well, actually, you did. You talked some nonsense about "only god can save", hail Jeebus, praise be the bearded man. Which is nonsense. We have perfectly rational explanations for why kids aren't getting killed by this virus as much as adults.
Parents keep children away from sick people. Medical care is more urgently pursued for children. Children have generally less resistance to antiviral medication. Children are, in most countries, strictly monitored for health, and nourished exceedingly well. Children generally live with less stress, which we know increases resistance to illness.
There are a multitude of reasons why this virus kills kids less, that are far more rational than "because bearded holy man in the sky".
Not at all. I would be happy if you stopped posting nonsense shit and actually went out an experienced and explored the world, instead. but nah. Stuck in little ol USA, in your home town probably. Still with the same backward religious bullshit that kept your parents there.
Live a little, man.
A dictatorship? Seriously? are you retarded?
A dictatorship is a dictatorship. A movement is a movement. A movement for people to accept something is not a legal demand for them to accept it upon penalty of death. Stop being so fucking stupid.
No, they don't. And if the United States are gonna sanction nations for human rights violations, they ought to start with the ones they sell weapons to.
The Saudi government are, by far, the worst human rights violators of all governments in the middle east. By far. The Iranians don't even hold a candle.
No energy can be created or destroyed, only changed in form. In our existence, nothing cannot exist.
The anthropic principle tells us that the idea of "nothing" is a bit meaningless in a universe of stuff and life and the power of observation. In this universe, nothing can't exist. Because if there was nothing, there wouldn't be a universe!
What a stupid comment. Erdogan has decided to open the borders to Greece because the EU isn't fulfilling its commitments to financially support Turkey in housing and feeding all the refugees.
Turkey is a state under the authority of the European Charter of Local Self Government, meaning it is a state in a transition towards a Western democracy. 60% of the population are Muslim, and of those, not even half practice it.
There hasn't been one recorded terrorist attack by a Turkish national in a Western country, so far as I know. Turkish people are Ottomans at heart: they aren't Arabs (with whom your backwards as fuck government seem to do copious business with despite nearly all the 9/11 attackers being from that country, and despite Saudi having probably the worst human rights record in any Islamic state not currently in war).
But sure you're too fucking stupid to actually think about any of this before you open your mouth.
Now I'm afraid I would have to say that is a false conclusion. Einstein proposed as part of his theory of relativity that space and time (i.e. the universe) are things in and of themselves. Indeed, without this concept Einstein would not have been able to explain gravity, which is a phenomena in which space and time (i.e. "nothing", as you might say) exist in a different condition in some parts of the universe than they do in others. Given this information, it might either be the case that the universe itself came from nothing (i.e. what the OP is alluding to) or that nothing itself might be an imaginary concept
This doesn't make sense. Space and time are things. They aren't nothing.
Warlords and slavers sold slaves to more powerful warlords and slave seekers. Hardly an excuse to blame black people as a race for their own enslavement. It wasn't the slaves that sold themselves you fucking retard. But of course, you are incapable of separating them because they have the same skin colour. That makes you a fucking racist cunt.
It's not a semantic issue. Nothing is the absence of any thing. The universe is full of things. If none of those things existed, there would be no existence. But the universe does exist. And things do exist. Thus, nothing is a physical impossibility. If there is nothing, then there is no universe, no physical things, no existence.
America invaded the middle east and killed hundreds of thousands to millions of the citizens there. Why do you think terrorists happen to cite the conflict in the middle east as their motivation for violence?? lol.
America has EVERYTHING to do with it.
I agree completely.
See there is a culture and belief among the older generation that the media is unbiased and gives information that is factual and in their interest. For a long time, that might have been largely accurate as regards to some of the independent newspapers (though the BBC was also quite unbiased in many ways, empirical expansion was glossed over and hidden by them).
But really, the older generations are out of touch with the way the world is. Nostalgia for the past, the belief that Britain is still powerful and empirical, that the world will follow its demands. It is pipe-dreams.
The truth of it is, Brexit will be the final nail in the coffin of the "Empire", and those who voted for it will (hopefully) spend their last years ruing the choice.
This warms my heart. I genuinely wish that this could be so. But I believe it will not be possible until we agree on the simple virtues of peace, fairness, and the right of all humans to live securely and safely, none at the expense of others.
Where power lies, is where the desire to perpetuate imbalance usually lies.
It wasn't really a majority. About a third of people eligible to vote, voted to leave. A good number of those, when polled about why they voted so, stated that they had seen advertisements that stated that there would be an extra £350 million per week available to the NHS if the UK left. This, of course, turned out not to be true. And as a result, many who voted to leave, when asked more recently, would now vote to remain.
Also taking into account the number of retirees who voted, many of whom have since died, and the younger people who have now come of age to vote (who would overwhelmingly vote remain), then it cuts that number even further. The people most likely to vote to leave were the older generation, while younger people (to whom the future belongs) overwhelmingly voted to remain.
There is also the issue of what that vote actually meant. Many of those who voted to leave, did not actually know what that would entail. We now know that it entails a great many things that the vast majority of this country are against: the potential repeal of the European Human Rights Act; an attack on worker's rights; no more visa-free travel to mainland European countries; a potential manned border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; the removal of tuition fee caps etc etc etc.
I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the UK leaving the EU is going to create a negative environment for almost everyone, except the very wealthy people who promoted it by lying (many of whom have since moved their businesses to tax havens outside of Britain where they won't pay UK taxes; one of the disadvantages of Brexit is likely to be further tax loopholes for such people. Yet, they are the same ones who, throughout the campaign to leave, blamed immigrants and those on welfare for messing up the country's economy, when in fact, most lost revenue comes from tax avoidance).
First photo is fake. The quotes are mostly Guido Fawkes talking absolute shite with no basis in fact. The statistic about Jews is absolute bollox parroted by the right wing friends of the UK Chief Rabbi (who is known to be a right wing friend of right wing politicians in the UK, who happened to be running for election right around the same time).
But actually the United European Jews executive board sent an open letter to Jeremy Corbyn giving him their full support.
You are parroting bullshit.
Sophistry.
God "would" is a hypothetical premise. You'd have to prove he exists before you assert "he is the only thing that actually exists".
The problem is that you have asked a stupid question built upon a conclusion you've already formed without any evidence for it, then tried to shift the burden of proof to someone who is asserting that things simply exist because that's the way it is.
By definition, "nothing" cannot "exist". Existence requires there to be things that ARE.
Without American imperial foreign policy, this shit wouldn't be happening. The demands of Muslim extremists are pretty clear: take troops out of the Middle East and stop killing civilians.
However, on the other side, this man is just as bad as you American war-dogs: he has tried to kill civilians.
Perhaps if America would fuck off out of other countries, we might actually be able to live side by side with people from wherever.
Bulshit. Sorry. I agree with lots of what you say. But the first premise of this is bullshit.
You can't claim territory after 2000 or more years. All you can do is negotiate processes to engender cooperation and mutual understanding. The partition of Palestine was meant to give Isrealis a home. It wasn't meant to allow them to expand and oppress.
As far as I am concerned, the Palestinians are freedom fighters at this point. And death to the Israel that stops them from asserting their rights under international law.
Until Israel agree to the terms of the partition, there will be no peace.
