Trump's days

[Lendo]

For what i see, there's a lot of members that are interested in politics and who like to discuss it. So i think we can have good conversations about american politics, which in the next years will go around Trump's name.

First question i make you: how do you explain Trump's victory, since he was (he still is) a political outcast?

[Magnocrat]

Donald Trump is an opportunist who observed the mounting discontent among workers and played his Trump card. This is widespread over the globe as people clamour for more and fear anyone who may take their share of cake. The result is a move to the right everywhere in politics.

[Dreamwoven]

I have no vote in America so feel at a disadvantage in this topic. I agree with Magnocrat, though that he is part of the general move to the right in politics. A bit worrying as there is the re-emergence of far-right, by which I mean fascism, still few, but we are starting to see sieg-heil salutes again. Very unpleasant...

[YesNo]

I think he road a wave of negative social mood because he had the resources and the personality to resonate with it. I am not worried about Trump (or Clinton). I am worried about a coming depression that neither of them would be able to stop.

[Seumas99]

It's been said often but I think being a "political outcast" helped him win the election. He was radically different from any other politician and so attracted Americans who felt left behind by previous regimes (Clinton especially is reminiscent of her husband and thus represents the old political elite; it certainly felt like she had a sense of entitlement about her). It also helped that he has an alpha male personality strong enough to bluster through anything; none of the conventional rules of politics applied because he simply didn't care about pandering to political correctness or being consistent and so his opponents didn't really know what to do.

(Of course technically he didn't win the popular vote so all this was not enough to get most Americans to vote for him but it attracted enough.)

I'm not an American and so I might be very wrong about some of this, but these are my observations from a distance.

[Lendo]

The road for Trump's victory begins with the total lack of credibility of both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. In a political system with only two parties with a governance past, and after years and years of corruption scandals, bad management of the country politics and resources, a clear cultural of political corruption and promiscuous ties to the corporate world, there was clear way for a person outside the political mainstream system to show up and gather the votes of a considerable majority who is sick and tired of the politicians, the usual politicians of both parties.

Plus, either because of ideology or interests (political, economical, personal, whatever) the two main parties were just unable to give the right answers to the right problems that many americans felt it was necessary to handle. Just like what's happening in Europe, the traditional political system was incompetent when facing an outsider, who was considered a rich fool who was just having fun running for President. What the Democrats and the Republicans during the primaries didn't understand and didn't see was that Trump was actually targeting the main problems and what worries the most the average american citizen: lack of employment, globalization effects like factories and companies closing, the lack of opportunities for those who are not part of the millennial generation and don't have some skills that are today essential (like handling modern technological methods and equipment), the violent crimes, the illegal immigration that has reached incredible numbers in some states. For weeks and weeks politicians didn't even care about Trump's run for the White House, Hillary even laughed about the idea of Trump winning when she was hosted at Jimmy Fallon's show.

But the fact is that Trump spoke directly for the american who was left behind with globalization, who was left behind with the changing of times, and for those americans, from the South or from the North, with college degrees or not that were just worried about the american position in the global economy (in which China is just getting more and more powerful), the threats that the US faces worldwide (specially the islamic terrorism) and some more older issues that in a crisis context gain another relevance, like illegal immigration and illegal immigration related crimes. And, as i said, none of the traditional parties gave answers to most of these problems. Democrats believe that the more globalized, the better. Like Bill Maher said many times, Democrats weren't even capable of using the expression "islamic terrorism". Not to mention the traditional themes that split the nation, like legalizing some drugs or abortion.

But i have to say that what some of you said, that the anti-globalization feeling that is spreading threw out the world is a phenomenon linked to the far-right, is not entirely true. Yes, we see some far-right movements and parties getting more votes and more relevant in their countries. There's examples, such as the National Front in France, UKIP in the United Kingdom and the FPO in Austria. But the anti-globalization phenomenon has also benefit many left-extremist parties and movements, like PODEMOS in Spain, the Left Block in Portugal, Syriza in Greece and the Worker's Party in Belgium.

[Magnocrat]

Yes indeed you are correct some countries did move to the left but the human motives were very similar. Things aren't looking good who can help us to more cake and less austerity. Greece was in a parlous condition and many blamed Europe for it.
You will always find voters think largely of their own lifestyles; left, right or centre they don't care as long as improvement is promised.
Politics was never summed up better than in George Owell's Animal Farm.

[Lendo]

Yes indeed you are correct some countries did move to the left but the human motives were very similar. Things aren't looking good who can help us to more cake and less austerity. Greece was in a parlous condition and many blamed Europe for it.
You will always find voters think largely of their own lifestyles; left, right or centre they don't care as long as improvement is promised.
Politics was never summed up better than in George Owell's Animal Farm.

It has also a lot to do with the political traditions of the countries and with their History. It's not a coincidence that far-right parties or movements are not growing in Portugal and Spain. Both countries have a semi-recent past of far-right dictatorships, Salazar in Portugal and Franco in Spain. So there's still a lot of stigma thorwards anything that has a connection with the traditional ideological issues of the far-right. Any party that talk's about immigration, about national values, about getting out of the EU to promote national industry and economy is automatically labeled as fascist and a reappearing of the ancient regimes ideas. There's still that language/political covered opression of the right speech in Portugal and Spain.

In Greece it happened the same for years, since they had the "Coronels regime", also from the authoritarian right. But the refugee crisis and the profound problem with the illegal imigrants from Africa and Eastern Europe allowed the far-right to reappear and grow, with the Golden Dawn party (which more than a far-right party, is almost a neo-nazi party).

[Magnocrat]

Parties cannot grow without votes and we must look at the motives of the voters. To often the politicians are centre stage but they and the media manipulate voters.
This is why David Cameron tried to get the editor of the Daily Mail sacked and why Rupert Murdock is so powerful. At the moment Donald Trump is trying to enlist friendly media. Its not what actually happens that matters but how we perceive it.

[Lokasenna]

Trump is a symptom, I think, rather than a cause - as is Brexit and the Italian 'No' vote. They are borne out of the frustration of the silent majority of ordinary people who feel that politics is dominated by an elite class whose interests and ideals are far removed from working people. Trump tapped a well of deep anger, people who go through the daily grind of life with a sense of irritation and hardship, and when it comes to vote look to the Democrats and see a party that has spent far more time debating trans-gender toilet rights than trying to improve working conditions in mid-America. A party in which a parade of multi-millionaire celebs took to their microphones to tell the poor, the unfortunate, the grifters, that the status quo and their own hardship is something they should support because it is morally right. Is it any surprise that people voted against that?

Voting for Trump became a tool to express that frustration for a great many people, and I suspect that was why he won - moreso than the voters actually being married to his agenda. Des[ite being a billionaire, he is in America's eyes not one of the elite. Mrs May in the UK, too, is consistently appealing to the population in opinion poll after opinion poll because of her middle-class background.

For what it's worth, while I'm wearing my fortuneteller hat, this is also why Marine Le Pen will eventually be President of France (though, I suspect, in 2022 rathe than 2017), why the Five Star Movement will gain enough clout in Italy to take it out of the Euro, why Geert Wilders will soon dominate nearly half the Dutch Parliament (held in check by a grand opposing coalition, but possibly with enough clout to trigger a Dutch referendum on EU membership), and why a whole host of other populist parties throughout Europe will make stunning gains.

America will survive Trump, although it will be a bumply few years, but I suspect the EU will not survive the Trump-ing of European politics.

[Lendo]

Parties cannot grow without votes and we must look at the motives of the voters. To often the politicians are centre stage but they and the media manipulate voters.
This is why David Cameron tried to get the editor of the Daily Mail sacked and why Rupert Murdock is so powerful. At the moment Donald Trump is trying to enlist friendly media. Its not what actually happens that matters but how we perceive it.

The power of the media is immense, indeed. That's why today, more than ever, political parties try to control the media and influence directly it's content. And they try to transmiti their message in multiple ways, like presenting propaganda in the form of entertainment. For example, does anyone still see's the Tonight Show with Stephen Colbert as an entertainment show, like it was with Jay Leno or David Letterman? No. Because it became a completely anti-Trump propaganda show. It's now clear that the Tonight Show shifted completey from the entertaining side to the political side, with a very clear agenda. And show's like the one Jon Stewart had were always presented as entertainment, when the political goal was clear.

[Lendo]

Trump is a symptom, I think, rather than a cause - as is Brexit and the Italian 'No' vote. They are borne out of the frustration of the silent majority of ordinary people who feel that politics is dominated by an elite class whose interests and ideals are far removed from working people. Trump tapped a well of deep anger, people who go through the daily grind of life with a sense of irritation and hardship, and when it comes to vote look to the Democrats and see a party that has spent far more time debating trans-gender toilet rights than trying to improve working conditions in mid-America. A party in which a parade of multi-millionaire celebs took to their microphones to tell the poor, the unfortunate, the grifters, that the status quo and their own hardship is something they should support because it is morally right. Is it any surprise that people voted against that?

Voting for Trump became a tool to express that frustration for a great many people, and I suspect that was why he won - moreso than the voters actually being married to his agenda. Des[ite being a billionaire, he is in America's eyes not one of the elite. Mrs May in the UK, too, is consistently appealing to the population in opinion poll after opinion poll because of her middle-class background.

For what it's worth, while I'm wearing my fortuneteller hat, this is also why Marine Le Pen will eventually be President of France (though, I suspect, in 2022 rathe than 2017), why the Five Star Movement will gain enough clout in Italy to take it out of the Euro, why Geert Wilders will soon dominate nearly half the Dutch Parliament (held in check by a grand opposing coalition, but possibly with enough clout to trigger a Dutch referendum on EU membership), and why a whole host of other populist parties throughout Europe will make stunning gains.

America will survive Trump, although it will be a bumply few years, but I suspect the EU will not survive the Trump-ing of European politics.

I think that by considering that Trump's win was essentialy an anti-party phenomenon, and disconsidering what he proposed and what he promised threw out the entire campaign you are doing the same mistake that Democrats and Republicans did. Trump didn't win only because he was an outcast of the political traditional system. He also won because of his agenda. He adressed the issues that most americans are concerned about. Not the trans-gender rights, not the legalization of marijuana, but the daily basis issues: unemployment, job criation, re-industrialization of America, illegal immigration, etc. Anti-system candidates show up everywhere. The reason why Trump is the only one so far who was elected is that to the anti-system card he added a speech that reached a big number of people and presented a solution for the day-by-day life of the working class.

And what's happening in France not only precedes the Trump phenomenon (Le Pen was already gaining votes and relevance before Trump was even a candidate) but what's happening in France is actually very different from what's happened in the US. And it's very different from what's happening in Greece or Spain, for example. What you have in France is a social system that gave proof of it's unsustainability, for economical, political and social reasons. You have an economy in a deep crisis because of the bad judgement of a completely pro-european government. And you have this perception that the EU is nowadays more a problem creator than a problem solver. But, essentialy, what the french are rejecting is the social system i talked about, that allow's for hundred of thousands of people to get in every year in the country and to impose their culture, instead of adapting to the french society, even if keeping their cultural differences and beliefs. 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.

Obviously, this insane way that the Left set for France and that the moderate right wasn't able or interested to contest, created the normal and correct insatisfaction in the french people. A country does not have to abandone it's beliefs and values and to succumb to other ones because of an immigrant community, that wants to impose a considerable less tolerant and free way of life that the one the french have in their own country. And that's the speech of Le Pen.

So, the ideological aspect is much more relevant that the anti-system one in Le Pen's rising. Because, in fact, the National Front is part of the system for many, many years. Trump's phenomenon can be related to the anti-system movement, but Le Pen is essentialy a political and ideological phenomenon, the voters she will have will not vote for her because of an anti-system logic, but because of what she proposes for the country and because of what is the day-by-day reality of France.

[YesNo]

For what it's worth, while I'm wearing my fortuneteller hat, this is also why Marine Le Pen will eventually be President of France (though, I suspect, in 2022 rathe than 2017)

Last November I thought Trump (or someone like him) would be elected president in 2020, not 2016, and the polls seemed to agree until the evening of the vote count.

[Lokasenna]

I think that by considering that Trump's win was essentialy an anti-party phenomenon, and disconsidering what he proposed and what he promised threw out the entire campaign you are doing the same mistake that Democrats and Republicans did. Trump didn't win only because he was an outcast of the political traditional system. He also won because of his agenda. He adressed the issues that most americans are concerned about. Not the trans-gender rights, not the legalization of marijuana, but the daily basis issues: unemployment, job criation, re-industrialization of America, illegal immigration, etc. Anti-system candidates show up everywhere. The reason why Trump is the only one so far who was elected is that to the anti-system card he added a speech that reached a big number of people and presented a solution for the day-by-day life of the working class.

And what's happening in France not only precedes the Trump phenomenon (Le Pen was already gaining votes and relevance before Trump was even a candidate) but what's happening in France is actually very different from what's happened in the US. And it's very different from what's happening in Greece or Spain, for example. What you have in France is a social system that gave proof of it's unsustainability, for economical, political and social reasons. You have an economy in a deep crisis because of the bad judgement of a completely pro-european government. And you have this perception that the EU is nowadays more a problem creator than a problem solver. But, essentialy, what the french are rejecting is the social system i talked about, that allow's for hundred of thousands of people to get in every year in the country and to impose their culture, instead of adapting to the french society, even if keeping their cultural differences and beliefs. 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.

Obviously, this insane way that the Left set for France and that the moderate right wasn't able or interested to contest, created the normal and correct insatisfaction in the french people. A country does not have to abandone it's beliefs and values and to succumb to other ones because of an immigrant community, that wants to impose a considerable less tolerant and free way of life that the one the french have in their own country. And that's the speech of Le Pen.

So, the ideological aspect is much more relevant that the anti-system one in Le Pen's rising. Because, in fact, the National Front is part of the system for many, many years. Trump's phenomenon can be related to the anti-system movement, but Le Pen is essentialy a political and ideological phenomenon, the voters she will have will not vote for her because of an anti-system logic, but because of what she proposes for the country and because of what is the day-by-day reality of France.

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.

[Lokasenna]

Last November I thought Trump (or someone like him) would be elected president in 2020, not 2016, and the polls seemed to agree until the evening of the vote count.

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.

That said, I called Thursday's by-elections in Copeland and Stoke correctly, so maybe I'm getting better...

[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.

[Lendo]

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.

A fair law does not limit our Freedom. Because of the single fact that "Freedom" is not doing everything we want. Freedom means being capable of acting and living under our rights. Since we don't have the right to assault, to steal or to murder, the laws that limit our actions concerning that crimes do not limit our Freedom, because we don't have the right to act like that. On the contrary, those laws are meant to protect the other people's Freedom: the freedom of the one's who are the victims of those wrong actions, and the Freedom of the society that needs to know that crimes and bad actions have consequences, and we have not to live in fear. So, if one million americans are in jail, i will suppose that's because they weren't capable of living under the rules that a civilized society recquires to function in a healthy way, and that criminals being put behind bars it's a good sign.

Concerning to immigrants, i do not think that an immigrant has to become a copy of the citizen of the country he immigrates to. And i don't think that an immigrant has to abandone his beliefs or convictions because he immigrated. So, an hindu or a jew immigrant has not to abandone his religious beliefs because he immigrated. But an immigrant has to respect the culture, the customs and the law of the country that welcomed him. That he has to do, for sure. Because just like indians have the right to practice their customs, traditions and religion, just like algerians have the right to have their traditions, customs and religion, so the western societies have the right to have their own culture, traditions, customs and political understandings. An immigrant does not have the right to impose his culture to the society that welcomes him. An immigrant does not have the right that the society that welcomed him acts differently because of his beliefs. Every country has it's culture, and every state has to protect and promote it's own culture, it's culture and History, the ones that are related to the citizens of the country and state. Respecting and tolerating, obviously, differences. That's why european countries have mosques, because they accept difference. But when a muslim community established itself in a french neighborhood and says "European women does not get in here because they wear unholy clothes", that they can not do. When a muslim community outside Marseille says "We demand segregated swimming pools because men and women can not mix themselves because it's unholy" it's the French State obligation to answer "No". Because it's against our values, against our civilized and modern society. A free and civilized society has not to be submited to the anacronic and barbaric demands of an immigrant community.

Concerning to the illegal immigrants, this is not even a question. There's not even a debate here. A State has the right an the obligation to set up a sustainable and reasonable immigration politic. For economic, political, safety and sustainability reasons. A State has the right and the obligation to decide if someone can get in or not the country. And, obviously, has the right and the obligation to take action concerning the illegal immigrants. Otherwise, the most developed countries would become completely unsustainable, since would become the destiny of millions and millions of people from poor and underdeveloped countries. Which already happens. And see the results of that in France and Great Britain. We can learn a lot with the empiric experience.

[Ecurb]

First of all, you can define "freedom" in your own, idiosyncratic manner. Indeed, it is often the case that people define emotionally laden words like "freedom" or "liberty" in a manner that is compatible with their political views. However, the two million Americans in prison might think they are neither "free" nor "at liberty", whatever their crimes. "Free" means (among other things) freedom from bondage. But all laws are imposed by the threat of bondage. Surely "freedom" to walk where one chooses to walk is "freer" than being thrown in prison for walking where one chooses to walk (because one has trespassed).

This does not mean that laws are a bad thing. Certain limits on freedom are necessary, and most laws (I agree) function to serve the interests of society (although they limit freedom). I can have someone thrown in prison for driving my car without my permission -- which keeps my car available for me to drive, a convenience for which I paid good money.

Same with immigration. It's reasonable to have laws limiting immigration -- but those laws clearly limit the freedom of potential immigrants. This should be obvious. I'm not sure why it isn't, except that the words "freedom" and "liberty" have such positive connotations that some people cannot bear to think that they are limited by policies that they support.

As far as the moral obligation for immigrants to respect the culture, laws and religion of the nation to which they immigrate, I say: "Bosh!" They have no more obligation to respect those things than I do. I respect some of the laws, culture and religions of my native land, and lack respect for others -- like most reasonable, thinking people do. If I took a job in Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't respect some of their sexist laws (although I might obey them for fear of being beheaded). In fact, those of us who live in democratic states have a moral obligation to work to change those laws, mores, and cultural beliefs unworthy of our respect. Did immigrants to the U.S., when segregation was legal, when black citizens couldn't attend white public schools or drink at white drinking fountains, have an obligation to respect those laws? If one of the freedom fighter (note the name) who defied such laws was an immigrant, would he meet with your disapproval?

Islam does present an unusual problem for Western Democracies because Islam is both a religion and a political system. "Civil liberties" suggest guarantees against oppression by the majority; the separation of Church and State guaranteed by the Constitution in the U.S. is one such liberty. However, the greater danger in the West right now is a tyranny of the majority that oppresses Muslims, who are not yet in a position to have the majority vote. Even those (for example) who think it would benefit Western society to deny Muslims the right to immigrate might agree that the PRINCIPLE involved (denying access on the basis of religion) is problematic, and threatens the civil liberties to which I just referred.

[Lendo]

So, in order for you to prove your point, your are comparing the moral obligation to refuse an inmoral law to... the right of an immigrant to disrespect a fair law, imposing an unfair custom? That's kind of a paradox. No to say incoherent. The reason why a person has the right to oppose an unfair law, like the german people in 1930's and 1940's had to oppose the nazi laws, it's the same reason why we have the right not to attend immigrant demands that are uncivilized, inhumane and against our freedom. Against our society that, with all it's flaws, it's a modern, free and advanced society. Much more than the model of society that fundamentalist religious muslims are trying to impose in french, british, german, swedish and austrian cities.

"However, the greater danger in the West right now is a tyranny of the majority that oppresses Muslims". Do you really believe in what you just said? What tyranny does oppress muslims nowadays in the Western world? The nowadays problem is exactly the opposite: the fact that some muslim communities, under the rights and freedom the western countries garanteed them, are trying to impose a much less free society than the one we have today. The fact that some muslim communities do not understand that State and Religion do not have to be one and the same, the fact that some muslim communities believe they have the right to impose their beliefs, their customs, their traditions and their culture to other countries, other people, other States that have their own culture and traditions. Which is completely wrong.

Ofcourse that immigrants have an obligation of respecting the culture of the country they immigrated to! Because every country has it's own culture, traditions and customs, and every country has the right to preserve it's identity and culture. Otherwise, it would be a dictatorship of the majority, or a dictatorship of the most powerful culture. Otherwise, the world would be this grey, empty and poor place in which everyone had the same culture, speak the same language, practice the same beliefs, have the same customs. And the beauty and richness of Humanity and the world it's exactly the opposite: the fact that many people have different cultures. So, when a person decides to immigrate to another country, that person has to understand that it's going to a different reality that it's own, to a different place in which people have their own culture and beliefs. And that the people of that country has the right to be different, specially in it's homeland. Those who are not willing to respect that difference and respect the other people's beliefs, it's not fit to live in another society. Not in a healthy, reasonable and correct way. And a State has the right to oppose that behavior of those who are not capable of accepting the function of the societies that welcome others. A State does not have to tolerate the intollerance thorwards the function against it's principles. Specially, when concerns human rights.

It's absurd for me that someone says that an immigrant community has the right to impose to a country the way of life of their country. It's just behond my understanding. Specially, when some posts ago you seemed so angry with what the europeans did to Native Americans. I guess you are just against cultural impositions... when made by white europeans.

[Ecurb]

So, in order for you to prove your point, your are comparing the moral obligation to refuse an inmoral law to... the right of an immigrant to disrespect a fair law, imposing an unfair custom?

No reasonable person disrespects "fair laws". However, people may differ as to what laws or customs are fair.

In addition, since this thread is entitled "Trump's Days", it refers specifically to the situation here in the U.S., where courts have found Trump's attempts to ban Muslim immigration unconstitutional. This specific situation is what I refer to when I suggest that even those whom might like the outcome (banning Muslims) might object to the principle (banning immigrants based on their religion).



It's absurd for me that someone says that an immigrant community has the right to impose to a country the way of life of their country. It's just behond my understanding. Specially, when some posts ago you seemed so angry with what the europeans did to Native Americans. I guess you are just against cultural impositions... when made by white europeans.

On the contrary, I think highly of the Great American Political Experiment (although I'll grant that some of the repression of Native Americans was unconscionable). I thought I made that clear when I suggested that many Americans might think they DID have the right to impose their own form of democracy, despite being immigrants. Where you get your notions about what I'm suggesting is unclear. It certainly isn't from anything that I have written.

By the way, when President Andrew Jackson ordered the Cherokees to relocate from Georgia and North Carolina to Oklahoma, the Supreme Court of the U.S.declared that order unconstitutional, thus protecting the human rights of the minority (the Cherokees). Jackson notoriously said, "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let us see if they can enforce it." They couldn't. The result was the Trail of Tears, a march of the Cherokees to Oklahoma on which half of them died. Like Jackson, Trump seems to feel that his own desires, especially when backed by majority opinion, outweigh the guarantees of rights in the Constitution, as decided by the Judicial Branch of the Government.

One more point: like laws, "rights" limit freedom. That's because "rights' are nothing more than obligations on the part of other people. The "right to life" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence does not protect us from cancer or grizzly bears: it simply obliges other people (including our government) to refrain from killing us. Unfortunately, Jackson was free to ignore this right, despite Judicial admonitions, and Trump is attempting to ignore the right of people to practice whatever religion they want to practice without discrimination from the Government. However much some people deplore Islam, the principle is dangerous.

[Lendo]

Concerning to Trump's political project, it's a matter of Law, and interpretation of Law. I'm sure that with some ingenious and sneaky legal tactics, and a bit of political negotiation, Trump will be able to set up some type of immigration control on muslims. There's legal mechanisms, administrative mechanisms to get around law impositions, precisely because of situations like these. And with the most recent episodes, like the London attack, i think that some form of immigration policy will go threw. Not with the nature of the one that the Courts some much fought against, but some type of law. And by the way, i have no doubts that Trump's political project concerning muslims has ideological and personal motivations behond state's safety.

Speaking of the Andrew Jackson decision, that's not shocking. Because, as a famous law philosopher once said, "Courts are limited because they lack two important things: their own budgets, and their own armys". There will always be examples of political leaders that try to ignore the Law, and Justice (two different things). But i would like to think that in 2017 it's much more difficult for a President to ignore a court decision than it was in the early XIX century. In fact, i have no doubt in saying that in the Western World is virtually impossible for a government or a President to overlook a decision of a court. Today's societies simply do not tolerate that type of behavior from their leaders. And on that aspect, american civil society is one of the most active of them all. Sometimes, too much and for too little.

For last but very important, what's in question is not deploring Islam. Unleass i know i don't deplore Islam. I just deplore what some fundamentalist muslims communities are trying to do in Europe. There's a big difference. I would despise the same actions from hindus, jews or eskimos.

[Magnocrat]

It seems obvious to me that secular democracy is the very best of government systems and it is becoming better as time passes. It has pushed its own inherited religion,Christianity to broaden its moral outlook. Women priests and gay Bishops are appearing. Islam will be forced to change from within already women are uneasy in Saudi Arabia. The Berlin wall came down; rebellion rose up in Hungary and Poland.
We can be proud of our influence , the enlightenment started in Europe we must not go backwards.

[Lendo]

we must not go backwards.

That's what is scary right now: the fact that in the Western World there's people that apparently are willing to go backwards, do go back in time, to lose rights and freedom to succumb to the demands of a fundamentalist religious community under the argument of politically correctness, multiculturalism and tollerance. Which not only is wrong, but vert dangerous.

Ironicly, the same political sectors and the same people that are willing to make that civilizational regression of attending to the demands of the fundamentalist muslims in European cities are the very same political sectors and the very same people that fought so hard against the Christian and Catholic influence in society. A common and pathetic synthom of the european and western left (which includes the US): the hate and rage against their own cultural references and basis, and a blind and unreasonable tolerance and enthusiasm with everything that it's different and considered a minority. Even if it is a dangerous and fundamentalist minority, like the one that in France and Germany refuse to serve european citizens in their stores or that demand that in the neighborhoods where they live pork meat can not be sold.

It's common that some Left sectors of the US and Europe in general advogate, at the same time, a complete intolerance to every conservative element of Christianism but a sick tolerance to every element of other cultures and religions, even the most unhumain of them. It's a dangerous paradox to which the States and moderate political parties will have to find a solution to. And the civil society has to be active in the effort of not letting this understanding of society go threw.

[Ecurb]

Here in the U.S., the political influence of Christian Fundamentalists dwarfs that of Muslims. If any religious group threatens secular democracy, it isn't the Muslims. Christian Fundamentalism is less prevalent in Europe.

It seems to me that Christian Fundamentalism is not by nature right-wing. It became that way because of Communist atheism and its repression of Christianity. It was only natural that Christian Fundamentalists would object to leftist politics. With the collapse of world Communism, perhaps the Christian right may move to the center (although some issues, such as abortion, are preventing this).

[Lendo]

Christian Fundamentalism was never right-wing, and it's still not right-wing nowadays. Christian Fundamentalism, as a religious philosophy, his above the consideration Left vs Right and it preceeds that discussion by milleniums. And, most important of all, there's aspects of the fundamentalist christian speech that is completely incompatible with the right-wing speech, specially concerning property and economy. The Church Social Doctrine is profoundly critic to capitalism and today's concept of economy and property. We have just to have in mind how christians look at the concepts of richness and greed, of usury and land.

The right has adopted some of the speech of Christianism concerning social values and a conservative vision of society, but that's relatively recent. It became noticeable in the early XX century, with the rise of revolutionary and anti-religious socialist parties threw out all Europe and some anarchist movements in the US. In that contrast between the revolutionary and anti-religious philosophy of the socialists and the traditional philosophy of the liberals and the conservatives, the Church became attacked by the Left, and naturally the conservative and liberal (that time definition of liberal) parties became the political forces in which catholic and christian people got together, and the parties to which the Church leaned thorwards. And Communism was not atheist, it was deeply and violently anti-religious. There was an intense persecution to religions in countries that were ruled by left parties (like it happened in Portugal, in which churches were burned and priests were killed in the 1910's and what happened in France after the French Revolution with the jacobine rule) and in the Communist Block both christians and jews were persecuted in countries like Russia, Poland and Kazakhstan.

In recent years, with a clear division between Left and Right concerning to the type of society that each of the sides want, it became a political rule that the most conservative and traditional persons have more in common with the social vision of the right wing parties than with the left wing parties (which is considerably fracturing), and that conservative and traditional thinking has a cultural basis on christian/catholic values that are part of our culture for centuries. Many people in right-wing parties are not even people of faith, but they have those social values of the Catholic Church.

And it's true that Christian Fundamentalism is not relevant in Europe. On the contrary, today Europe as become a considerable atheist continent. Christian Fundamentalism is noticeable in some US states and in Latin American countries.

[Magnocrat]

We must distinguish between how all types of Christians behave in western society and what they claim to believe. Most lead normal ambitious lives too better themselves and their families they don't have property and goods in common as in the book of Acts. They are Christians in speak but normal action. The same applies to
westernised Muslims. Incidentally the same applies to socialists they still climb the ladder of ambition. It is natural part of human nature to be ambitious for ourselves and our families and stems from Darwins survival of the fittest.

[Magnocrat]

We are by nature tribal and our first allegiance is to family then to tribe or nation.
It is how natural selection has created us to survive. That means we find it very difficult to regard the whole of humanity as one tribe. We have engineered a pyramid of wealth with elites at the top and destitute at the bottom layer.
Go to any football match if you doubt our tribal nature , it often causes violence or even death. The society we have is a result of our evolutionary baggage as pointed by the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker.

[Clopin]

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.

Bolded - Speak for yourself, not for 'us Americans'.

As for the Native American example, I wonder how you can be ignorant regarding the point you're actually making. Where I grew up (Banff Alberta) there's a native reserve called Morley about 40 minutes away, where my mom used to teach. Living conditions 'on the res' aren't great, but what's worse are the standards of education, and the rampant social problems like drug and alcohol addiction, child abuse, child negligence, fetal alcohol syndrome, obesity, depression, and suicide. It's not unusual for kids to be illiterate in high-school, and the entire place is B-L-E-A-K. What you're suggesting in your post is that mass "immigration" (in fact it was more like a conquest) by Europeans to the Americas was savagely destructive to the Native American peoples and their traditional way of life, and so, because of this, you expect me to accept that this absolute and total destruction and supersession of one people by another can, and should, happen again with the argument that: "well, 500 years ago people who had the same skin colour as I do began a process which resulted in the almost complete eradication of an entire continent of people and so I shouldn't protest if the same happens to me, my family, and my descendants today." Are you out of your ****ing mind?


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 dunno about superior to those of the Natives, but superior to those of the Arab and North African world? Absolutely; it would be hard to not be superior to that pile of **** they call a culture.


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.

Who gives a **** about overall human liberty? The nation and its institutions exist to protect the citizens. I don't want human liberty if it means people can break into my house where my wife and children are asleep (not that I have a wife or children), and I don't care a whit about the supposed liberty (which only exists in your mind) of people to enter into a country illegally. Private property exists. Deal with it you Marxist ****. How many illiterate third world Muslim 'refugees' are you putting up on your own property right now? Zero, you ****.

Such bans might enhance the welfare of protected and advantaged citizens; they might promote homogeneity and hence prevent discord

Sounds pretty good to me. And the only trade off is some ******* who wants to turn Western Europe into a caliphate governed according to religious law won't be able to do so? Where do I sign up!?