Trump's days

[Clopin]

double post

[Clopin]

You have today getto's in french cities, parts of cities in which french aren't even welcome, in which the cultural and religious values of immigrants are imposed to french people. There's cities in France in which they are planning to creat public swimming pool with gender segregation, to satisfy muslim immigrants. There's neighborhoods in which the butchers may be forbidden of selling pork in order not to insult muslims.

Yep, they've got to go. I was raised to respect other cultures and peoples, and especially to respect the rules and customs of foreign nations while I was a guest within them. It seems totally absurd that the Islamic MO is to attempt to force the host nation to change to appease then, but, it can only end badly, and, hopefully, soon. I'm so tired of white-guilt.

I called a Labour majority in 2015, Andy Burnham for Labour leader in 2015, 'no' to Brexit and 'yes' to Clinton, so my political antenna have been off recently.

You know it's funny, I spent months leading up to the Brexit vote absolutely assured that it would end in a remain victory (and I said as much to anyone who I routinely discuss such matters with), and I woke up the morning of November 8th in a foul mood, knowing full-well that Clinton would become the 45th president of the United States. Obviously I'm extremely pleased to have been wrong on both counts, and I'm almost certain of a Front National victory in 2017.

[Lendo]

I agree with you to the extent that I think Trump's message resonated in broad terms with middle America, though I'm not sure that's quite the same thing as wholesale support for some of his more... er... esoteric policies: how many people who voted for Trump actually thought the Wall would be built? Or that the immigration ban would actually be enacted? And, while we're at it, how many voted for him simply on the basis that he was not Mrs Clinton?

I agree that Le Pen predates Trump (hence why I called Trump a symptom, rather than a cause) - indeed, in the context of France things really begin with Jean-Marie Le Pen rather than his daughter. But in a sense they do represent something similar, if not actually identical, to Trump: the rage against a self-selecting, autocratic, pan-national global elite. And that's a label that applies as much to the EU as it does to the Democrats. You are quite correct that in France the issue has been to do with the management of the economy and a disasterous social policy, coupled with a growing distrust of the EU: these issues have become inexorably tied in French voters' eyes to main parties. With Fillon having tanked for corruption (unsurprising, the French will think, for a career politician) and with the socialists having selected the helpless, Corbyn-esque Hamon, France finds itself with the alternative of two different outcasts: Le Pen and Macron. You're right that the FN has been part of the 'system', but it has never been tainted by actual power - that, in a sense, legitimises it in the eyes of voters. The same is true of groups like the 5 Star Movement, PVV, AFD and the Sweden Democrats - the fact that they are all no-platformed by the 'traditional' parties means they're never quite part of the system.

As an example of what I mean, look to the SNP in Scotland, a party not unlike some of those mentioned above. They've been in power for a decade there, and have made a generally awful job of running the place. But to their legion of supporters, they are not the 'establishment' and never will be: that will always be the 'traditional' UK parties, no matter how long Scotland continues to be a de facto one-party state.

The wall already existed in some states, like in Arizona, Texas and Califórnia. So yes, i believe that most people that voted for Trump actually believed that those type of phisical barriers would be extended to more states or to the entire border. Concerning to the immigration ban, i also believe that most people believed that Trump would do what he tried to do, and go forward with the legislation. Actually, it was much more credible the proposal of a muslim ban than the proposal of a wall.

Concerning to Macron, he is another figure that can not be considered a typical outcast, or even a true outcast. He was for many years affiliated with the Socialist Party and he was a Minister of the socialist government of Hollande until some months ago. I don't see the Macron phenomenon as an anti-system phenomenon or an anti-parties phenomenon. I see it as a natural flow of votes by the Left voters to the only figure at the Left that is not completely tainted with the bad governance of the last few years by Hollande's government.

[Lendo]

You know it's funny, I spent months leading up to the Brexit vote absolutely assured that it would end in a remain victory (and I said as much to anyone who I routinely discuss such matters with), and I woke up the morning of November 8th in a foul mood, knowing full-well that Clinton would become the 45th president of the United States. Obviously I'm extremely pleased to have been wrong on both counts, and I'm almost certain of a Front National victory in 2017.

From the started i believed that the Out would win. Even with all the polls saying otherwise, but everyone know's that the polls are made by in the big city areas, in which there's a tendency for more globalized, cosmpolitan and internationalist ideas. But knowing the posture of Great Britain concerning the EU, the european integration and the continental politics in the last decades, i was sure the Out would in.

[Magnocrat]

The old saying holds good ' when in Rome do as Rome does '.
Pakistan was formed to accommodate Muslims because they could not live with
Hindus. Those unprepared to change must live separately.
The problem is us western democracies are wealthy, and wealth and lifestyle always take preference over religion and custom, but given half a chance they will grab both.

[Ecurb]

Those unprepared to change must live separately.

When are you planning to separate yourself from the rest of us?

The problem is us western democracies are wealthy, and wealth and lifestyle always take preference over religion and custom, but given half a chance they will grab both.

Western democracies want to "grab both" wealth and lifestyle and religion and custom? Huh? Or does "they" refer to some generic "other" instead of its apparent referent?

[Magnocrat]

Grammar is not my strong point. Many Muslims move to get higher standards of living in the west and I don't blame them. They want to have their cake and eat it.
To carry out the Muslim lifestyle in a foreign country and a secular one at that.
If I moved to Saudi Arabia I would abide by their rules.

[Dreamwoven]

You would have to if you were a woman. For men it is easier.

[Magnocrat]

Yes but in their country if you chose it you would have to put up with their rules.
I would not want to move there but if I was poor enough I would jump at the chance.
We can not dictate to other nations how they should fun their affairs and we cannot allow any one to dictate to us how we should live. Even Christians who are UK citizens can not tell their secular nation how to run the country. The elected government is supreme in matters of law otherwise chaos reigns. Laws we dont like we have to put up with that's the price of civilisation.

[Dreamwoven]

This is a good answer, Magnocrat.

[Magnocrat]

As time goes by laws are amended and we all have to adapt we now have to accept homosexuality and even single sex marriage. If we believe in democracy we must support it. The freest countries in the world are western democracies. Once we allow outdated religious beliefs to rule our actions we will lose our hard earned freedom
The reasons so many people wish to come to the west is wealth and freedom. Many nominal Muslims adopt a western life style and evangelical Christians also enjoy the freedom it gives them.

[Ecurb]

As time goes by laws are amended and we all have to adapt we now have to accept homosexuality and even single sex marriage. If we believe in democracy we must support it. The freest countries in the world are western democracies. Once we allow outdated religious beliefs to rule our actions we will lose our hard earned freedom
The reasons so many people wish to come to the west is wealth and freedom. Many nominal Muslims adopt a western life style and evangelical Christians also enjoy the freedom it gives them.

We don't have to "put up with (our country's) rules". We can change them, or ignore them. In fact, if the rules are unethical, it is our moral duty to do so.

Western democracies may (or may not) be "the freest countries in the world". But that doesn't mean they can't offer even greater liberties. Here in the U.S., we clap handcuffs on immigrants whose parents brought them here when they were small children; who have known no other country as their home; who have been productive residents. Then we ship them off (against their will) to a country they have never known and where they do not speak the native language. Is this in the interest of "freedom"? We also have more than two million of our citizens locked up in prison. This doesn't seem to me to suggest we are one of the "freest countries in the world". On the contrary. Nor is draconian enforcement of the rule of law necessarily "the price of civilization" -- in fact, every other civilized country in the world imprisons a lower percentage of their citizens than we do.

You say, magnocrat, "we cannot allow any one to dictate to us how we should live." And then you say we must accept the rule of law. The two statements are incompatible.

[Lendo]

We don't have to "put up with (our country's) rules". We can change them, or ignore them. In fact, if the rules are unethical, it is our moral duty to do so.

Western democracies may (or may not) be "the freest countries in the world". But that doesn't mean they can't offer even greater liberties. Here in the U.S., we clap handcuffs on immigrants whose parents brought them here when they were small children; who have known no other country as their home; who have been productive residents. Then we ship them off (against their will) to a country they have never known and where they do not speak the native language. Is this in the interest of "freedom"? We also have more than two million of our citizens locked up in prison. This doesn't seem to me to suggest we are one of the "freest countries in the world". On the contrary. Nor is draconian enforcement of the rule of law necessarily "the price of civilization" -- in fact, every other civilized country in the world imprisons a lower percentage of their citizens than we do.

You say, magnocrat, "we cannot allow any one to dictate to us how we should live." And then you say we must accept the rule of law. The two statements are incompatible.

So... imprisoning criminals and deport illegal immigrants makes a country less free? I think the contrary. I think that a country in which the law is followed and Justice is made is a more country than it would be if the law was not abide.

The rule of law is the most significant tool to garantee a free society. It's not a paradox, it's not a incompatible logic. For us to live free, for us to have a healthy society, we have to make rules of general acceptance, so we can have an organized and predictable society. There's no freedom in everyone making up their own rules, on everyone deciding how to handle their problems. That's anarchy, the complete opposite of freedom. The rule of law is the only way for us to garantee that Justice is equal for all, no matter if someone is richer, stronger, more powerful or popular.

We can argue that everything that is part of Ius Gentium as to be untouched by government, that there's rights that even government can not take away. And i agree. That's why i am against the death penalty, and i don't understand how a country like the US still has the death penalty. But to say that, as a general principle, we can ignore the rules, that's a bad principle. And to think that because a country has two million inmates it's a less free country than others, basing on that single fact, it's wrong. I don't doubt that the United States is more free than China or Iran, no matter how much inmates the US has.

Concerning to muslims, they do have a problem with the western logic of separation between State and Religion, between Society and Religion. They come from countries in which the Alcoran is at the same type a religious and a constitutional book. They come from societies in which the Alcoran determines what the individuals, the society as an all and the State can do. For a person from a culture such this, specially for a person from a poor country, a fundamentalist country and if the person has low levels of education, it's very hard to accept that a State and a Society does not follow what that person understands as the only truth, the only acceptable way of live, the divine mandatory rules. That's why in countries like France, Great Britain and Norway we see muslim communities that not only don't try to adapt to the countries in which they live, but they are openly hostile to the citizens and to the authorities of the countries. There's neighborhoods in France and Great Britain in which muslims don't even let europeans in. This is just unacceptable in a modern, free and civilized society. And no, they are not in the right to ignore the rules of the country.

[Ecurb]

Yes, silly me, I think that the fact that almost 1% of Americans are incarcerated means that, well, almost 1% of Americans are not free. That seems pretty obvious. However, I never suggested we are less free than Iran or China -- simply that we could enjoy greater freedom than we actually do enjoy.

The reality is that all laws limit freedom. That's the ONLY thing that they do, and the only thing they CAN do. Property laws, for example, limit the freedom to walk on God's Green Earth (it might constitute trespassing). Of course although laws specifically limit freedom, they may also enhance freedom -- laws prohibiting assault might free people from being beaten by random strangers. Nonetheless, laws clearly limit freedom -- they are enforced by such dramatic limits on freedom as billy clubs, handcuffs, and prisons.

The notion that immigrants must assimilate, bowing to the customs, laws, and mores of the dominant culture doesn't sit very well with us Americans, who, after all, failed to adopt Native American religions, laws, customs, and economic systems when we emigrated to this continent. Many Americans (and most Trump supporters) think we were justified in maintaining our European religions, laws, and political systems; we thought them superior to those of the Natives. I guess not, according to Lendo and Magnocrat.

Laws, mores, customs, languages and religions change and evolve. One spur to that change is immigration -- new languages, new customs, and new religions have an impact on the dominant world view. Sometimes this impact spurs positive change; sometimes negative change. The notion that we should never change is ridiculous, though. So is the notion that draconian bans on immigration (which clearly limit individual freedom of movement) somehow enhance human liberty. Such bans might enhance the welfare of protected and advantaged citizens; they might promote homogeneity and hence prevent discord; but they so clearly limit human liberty that only complex and abstruse arguments can suggest otherwise.

[Danik 2016]

I couldn´t agree more, Ecurb.
I think we are living in a period of great changes and what is happening in many countries is a strong reaction against these changes.