Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

[bicicleur 2]

Both Le pen and Trump admires Putin, and the other way round. Both Le pen and Trump want EU dismantled, watch Russian TV and feel its attitude towards the EU. Just some bond factors. There are more.... such as boasting of non political correctness (whatever that means) and anti Establishment (whatever that means)..........and more. Its a love affair

I hate political correctness.
I think EU government is underperforming and making wrong decisions.
I think Obama foreign policy failed.
Does it make me a Trump/Putin adept?

 

[bicicleur 2]

ffffffffffffffffffffffff

 

[bicicleur 2]

Indeed, but what is the point? what is the intent? what is the outcome? what are the consequences? one needs to be wise enough to justify one over the other. Its not just a cool fashion trend. This also a denial of the many shades of grey concept, which is the reality of life. Some people are made up in a way that they cannot digest much information so the many greys of shade between black and white feels cumbersome and maybe unnecessary in their psyche, so a mantra of simple lines can give a sense of comfort just like a magic potion. Works well on the mind. But we ALL know life is not that simple and the many different grades of shades between the Black and White are very much a reality.

political correctness also denies the shades of grey
who criticizes the political correct model is categorized as extreme right
that is how the myth of 'multicultural Europe' could survive for so long

 

[LeBrok]

Yes, this is true, there are many shades of grey. This does not, however, provide any justification for limiting freedom of speech.

Isn't Melancon and alike free to give everybody their sick piece of mind every day?

 

[Maleth]

They also told me that in the states if you are the wealthier one you borrow money to the poor, the poor has the right to keep it.

I never heard of that but maybe someone from the states can explain further. What I know that America is an incredibly rich country and if all the rich people gave 20 dollars a month which is peanuts they would bring not only Americans out of poverty but many others around the world. Its not only Americans anyway. I am not sure why you have all this worry for super Rich people and so much disregard for poorer people. America is the richest country on Earth and have the greatest army. Donald Trump is saying he wants to make America Great again> PLEASE can one explain how we can ALL help to make America Greater then what it is? PLEASE can you explain this kind of greed. I am bewildered. What shall ALL the nations of the world do? Give everything to Trump as he is very mad when other countries progress economically. He wants to see people starving in China, He wants to see Mexico bank rupt, so he can tell his loyal supporters. America is great again and every body else is starving under our feet. Wake up. Can I just have a little break please.......................

Now in France, they have this law where if you rent to someone, and if this someone cannot pay the rent, and you need to wait til summer to kick the person out because it is illegal to throw people out in the cold. Once again, the same robin hood theory where people abuse it just like the black guy in my aunt's hotel, except in France in an apartment or a house it is legal until summer, where as in the states whether it is in a hotel or private apartment or house it is not legal.

Never heard of that either. All I know is that locally when you rent a place you make a legal contract. You give a deposit. If you leave before your contract ends you do not get the deposit back. If you do not pay your rent you are out in the street. Maybe someone from France should explain if what you are saying its true because it sounds like madness. We are not exactly in the kind of war were towns are flattened out through air raids so one needs emergency housing. Desperate type of housing as you mention happend after world war11 when whole towns were flattened and left millions of people dead and many millions more injured mentally and physically.

The parties who are for human rights argue that the poor refugees should come in rich countries because they are poor and have nothing. They believe rich countries must give some of their wealth to the poor, (this means they must give them free health care, free schooling, free holidays ...even the costs of letting the refugees going home to their countries are all paid by the government.) Wow, they don't need to work to pay for their holiday because they are poor.

The politicians are weak in Europe, and because of human rights' protests, they let in too many, by far too many without proper immigration control. Hence, the British freaked out.

Turkey was a key weapon in Leave's armoury and, although claims that the UK would not be able to stop it entering the EU were firmly denied, there was enough uncertainty about this - a fact that the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe unquestionably fed into.

The influx of Syrian refugees and the rest of the immigration crisis—for which there is no end in sight—is changing the face of the country too fast for the population to stomach, and the E.U.’s rules on free movement of labor are an easy target.

When we migrated to Australia from Malaysia, do you have any idea how much effort and money we need to make to be able to qualify the immigration? It is hard to explain to somebody who does not have the same mentality, because in many European countries there is no such thing called business immigration. Malaysia also has it's share of religious problem, and just because we are able to control it better, and that to seek a better life overseas, we must pay a lot of money and so on to compete with others to migrate. This is all because we are NOT poor enough *roll eyes* to be considered as "refugees".

I think the British think differently than the other Europeans. In particular, I think they are less of a socialist than the French. As an Australian (Malaysian born), I can tell you that our left wing is like the French's right wing. Being born in a country who is a member of the commonwealth ( meaning we have a lot of contacts with the British, and that immigration law in Malaysia is very strict, this seems to be a Anglo Saxon influenced system) and lived in Australia since I was a child ( more contacts with the British because Australia has a lot of British) until my marriage to an European, so I moved to Europe ( many contacts with the francophone Europeans) as an adult, I think the British, they are also different from the other Europeans in their mentality.

I think if Malasyia was at war you would expect some kind of help from your neighbors. Or maybe not? Never had experienced someone through one thing or another have lost all they had not necessarily their fault? What makes you feel so invincible and can never happen to you?. As long as you are human nobody is. Keep that in mind Lady. You have super cold attitude which I don't like. Anyway I am sorry but your reasoning is like you come from some kind of cast system where you see poor people as animals. I am not brought up in that environment. Enough with your anti poor anti needy rhetoric. I come from an inclusive society we are very proud of. And by the way Australians, Canadians and Americans I met have been the most vociferous and brave for a justice and do not really echo your sentiment. Not only for fellow humans but also animals. At least that is my experience.

Ever since Brexit happened, they are already waving at Australians to go there to work and for them to come to Australia to work. This matches Boris Johnson calls for tough ‘Australian-style’ system to handle asylum seekers if Brexit vote wins.

Good luck to them. It does not mean anything. For a country to live well it has to has good trade and reasonably day to day commodities and food. Just by exchanging workers its going to prove anything economic wise. We see it when it happens. But nothing changes so far, which could have.

 

[Athiudisc]

I dont think i ever implemented I am in favor to limit freedom of speech since you are insisting . I think you are more implying that hate speech should be allowed? as part of freedom? (of speech?)

It absolutely should, and here in the States (unlike much of Europe), generally is.

If so what are the motives? what are the intentions? how does it help a society? How does it improve things?

Allowing a government to determine that "free speech" is limited to "speech the government likes" rather defeats the concept to begin with. Here, we've decided that ideas (and their expression) are not to be prohibited unless they rise to the level of immediate incitement to criminal violence.

I.e., I can say "I think left-handed people should be expelled, because really, we all know left-handers are sinister," but "hey, guys, let's go over and burn that left-hander's house down!" can be considered a crime.

In Europe, from what I understand, even the former could be criminal. The difference is belief versus encouragement of crime. Some people apparently believe the former to be the latter by definition, which is ultimately a desire to police thought. It might help to understand the differences in approaches here by recalling that our American Bill of Rights isn't a list of things the people are allowed, but a list of constraints upon the government to keep them from violating rights that are inherent, not granted. Thus, as an example, when public universities here attempt to regulate "hate speech," they almost always lose in court, to the great gnashing of young, progressive teeth.

As for how it helps, its value, etc., consider:

If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.

Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.

 

[Maleth]

I hate political correctness.
I think EU government is underperforming and making wrong decisions.
I think Obama foreign policy failed.
Does it make me a Trump/Putin adept?

I know this now you said many many times. I think even other posters know it. Trump/Putin/far right parties....best buddies

ffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

I know it must be hot there like it is here. I really should be at the beach fffffffffffffffffffff its hot.

 

[Maleth]

Isn't Melancon and alike free to give everybody their sick piece of mind every day?

We need hate speech LeBrok there is no freedom here.....why no hate preachers? Hate speech = Freedom.....cool stuff

 

[Athiudisc]

We need hate speech LeBrok there is no freedom here.....why no hate preachers? Hate speech = Freedom.....cool stuff

Eupedia is not a governmental body.

 

[Maleth]

It absolutely should, and here in the States (unlike much of Europe), generally is.



Allowing a government to determine that "free speech" is limited to "speech the government likes" rather defeats the concept to begin with. Here, we've decided that ideas (and their expression) are not to be prohibited unless they rise to the level of immediate incitement to criminal violence.
and what does hate speech does?

I.e., I can say "I think left-handed people should be expelled, because really, we all know left-handers are sinister," but "hey, guys, let's go over and burn that left-hander's house down!" can be considered a crime.

In Europe, from what I understand, even the former could be criminal. The difference is belief versus encouragement of crime. Some people apparently believe the former to be the latter by definition, which is ultimately a desire to police thought. It might help to understand the differences in approaches here by recalling that our American Bill of Rights isn't a list of things the people are allowed, but a list of constraints upon the government to keep them from violating rights that are inherent, not granted. Thus, as an example, when public universities here attempt to regulate "hate speech," they almost always lose in court, to the great gnashing of young, progressive teeth.

As for how it helps, its value, etc., consider:

Hate speech has nothing to do with freedom of Speech. From your quotes no one suggested hate speech if fine.

 

[Athiudisc]

Hate speech has nothing to do with freedom of Speech.

That's your opinion. The law differs.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I know this now you said many many times. I think even other posters know it. Trump/Putin/far right parties....best buddies

well it is clear how many shades of grey you know : black and white

 

[Maleth]

That's your opinion. The law differs.

Indeed we know that mainly from Trump.....you know like "I would like to punch him in the face" its legal, joyful and good. What can be the president of the USA. The funny thing is that hate speech protectors would be the first to want to ban Muslim hate speech. Dont they have a right too. Incredibly weird scenario. Yes that is my opinion of course.

 

[Maleth]

well it is clear how many shades of grey you know : black and white

Thats because I hate political correctness..................

 

[Athiudisc]

Indeed we know that mainly from Trump.....you know like "I would like to punch him in the face" its legal, joyful and good.

I think a far better example that predates Trump's attempt at the American presidency is the idea that one can literally go to prison in many European countries for simply stating a belief about history. Here, if you say "there was no attempted genocide of Jews in WWII," you get looked at like you're a crazy person. In Italy (sorry, I know nothing of Malta's laws, so I picked someone close), you can get four years in prison. Years in prison for being caught with an illegal thought. It's insanity, IMO.

The funny thing is that hate speech protectors would be the first to want to ban Muslim hate speech.

No, people here who believe in our Constitution generally don't suggest that Muslims should be disallowed the practice of their religion.

 

[Maleth]

I think a far better example that predates Trump's attempt at the American presidency is the idea that one can literally go to prison in many European countries for simply stating a belief about history. Here, if you say "there was no attempted genocide of Jews in WWII," you get looked at like you're a crazy person. In Italy (sorry, I know nothing of Malta's laws, so I picked someone close), you can get four years in prison. Years in prison for being caught with an illegal thought. It's insanity, IMO.

I have no idea how it works in Italy. Maybe some members are more aware.

No, people here who believe in our Constitution generally don't suggest that Muslims should be disallowed the practice of their religion.

no one complains much for normal practicing its the hate of extremists that irritates many people and the murder they promote as part of it. Thats why its baffling how some people consider hate speech as some kind of freedom project. Where does it stop? The Radicals openly preach it....but the hate speech protectors must seem its really fine......baffling to say the least...

Lots of contradiction on the issue

 

[Angela]

I think a far better example that predates Trump's attempt at the American presidency is the idea that one can literally go to prison in many European countries for simply stating a belief about history. Here, if you say "there was no attempted genocide of Jews in WWII," you get looked at like you're a crazy person. In Italy (sorry, I know nothing of Malta's laws, so I picked someone close), you can get four years in prison. Years in prison for being caught with an illegal thought. It's insanity, IMO.

No, people here who believe in our Constitution generally don't suggest that Muslims should be disallowed the practice of their religion.

If you say that, and more importantly, believe that, you are a crazy person; of course, you might just be saying it while knowing it's not true, in which case you're a liar. Now, please don't take this as permission to go off topic, ok?

The point is that no matter how obnoxious and idiotic your statements, you should have a right to say them in the public square. For the umpteenth time, free speech has to do with prohibiting the government from curtailing what it deems to be objectionable speech; it has nothing to do with private entities, except through public pressure. If you come out with this **** in my house, I'll boot you out. End of story.

That doesn't mean I think you should go to jail for saying it.

The minute you advocate harm to anyone it's a totally different story. What would amount to conspiracy to commit sedition is on a whole different level.

 

[Athiudisc]

no one complains much for normal practicing its the hate of extremists that irritates many people and the murder they promote as part of it.

I suppose that extremism is in the eye of the beholder. "Normal practicing" of Islam says that I both deserve and shall receive an eternity of torture when I die. Their scripture commands them to make war upon me unless I submit to their religion. Is that "hate speech?"

If so, do you believe that Islam should be legal, or do you still believe that "hate speech" should be proscribed? Can one allow the practice of Islam while prescribing its holy text?

I'm sure you're aware that reading the Qu'ran is about as "normally practicing" as you can get in Islam, including reading it during services. Sneak into a jum'ah (it's not hard) and listen. There's generally some reading of the Qu'ran...

Thats why its baffling how some people consider hate speech as some kind of freedom project. Where does it stop? The Radicals openly preach it....but the hate speech protectors must seem its really fine......baffling to say the least...

So you support the banning of Islam? Its major sects have no "some of these laws were changed in a new covenant" concept like Christianity. The Qu'ran is the holy word of their god, as dictated to the final prophet by an angel. And that's not even touching ahadith.

From my perspective, it's quite silly, but it's a facet of their religion. I don't think they should be barred from believing it or speaking of it. In line with the way my country tends to deal with these things, I tend to think it's when they stop talking about how I should be punished and actually try to punish me, or make a specific call to punish me beyond the vague "as the book says, he's guilty of mushrik and should be punished!" bit that action should be taken.

Again, much of Europe seems very hypocritical in this. They allow special privileges of "hate speech" for Muslims that the previous ethnic populations do not enjoy.

 

[Athiudisc]

If you say that, and more importantly, believe that, you are a crazy person; of course, you might just be saying it while knowing it's not true, in which case you're a liar. Now, please don't take this as permission to go off topic, ok?

Ok. I trust you're intelligent enough to understand it was a topical example, and not everyone believes every example they produce in a debate regarding free speech.

Right?

The point is that no matter how obnoxious and idiotic your statements, you should have a right to say them in the public square. For the umpteenth time, free speech has to do with prohibiting the government from curtailing what it deems to be objectionable speech; it has nothing to do with private entities, except through public pressure. If you come out with this **** in my house, I'll boot you out. End of story.

This was rather my point when pointing out that Eupedia is not a governmental body.

 

[Angela]

Athiudisc;485912]Ok. I trust you're intelligent enough to understand it was a topical example, and not everyone believes every example they produce in a debate regarding free speech.

Right?

That was a "generic" you, not you "personally", as I don't know your personal beliefs in these matters.

"Normal practicing" of Islam says that I both deserve and shall receive an eternity of torture when I die. Their scripture commands them to make war upon me unless I submit to their religion. Is that "hate speech?"

I realize you know this, but to spell it out even more clearly for others, a distinction has to be made between them believing all non-Muslims will go to hell versus advocating for sending them there at the hands of violent Muslims. Heck, when I was a little girl I was told all Protestants would go to hell. So would Catholics who didn't attend Mass. Since my father hadn't been to Mass in twenty years, I had nightmares of him in hell for a good long while. Thankfully, by the time I hit high school I was taught by more enlightened and educated nuns that people never exposed to our beliefs couldn't be judged for that, that there was, in fact, a "Baptism by deeds", virtual Baptism, and at least a bow to the idea that a merciful God would make exceptions for "good" people, and "Heresy of heresies", some even wondered whether, given that behavior could stem from psychological and physical trauma suffered by people whom we deem "evil", perhaps no one was in hell at all. I don't think it's impossible that Islamic theology might move in this direction. That's sincerely my hope, anyway.

Now, I'm very aware that there are some Imams who do preach this sort of thing in a modern context. That's why I think that the New York City task force which attempted to monitor what goes on in some mosques was not a terrible idea.

Do all of them, however? Certainly, distinctions would have to be made. Even then, as you seem to understand, our laws here in the U.S. require a concrete act in furtherance of a conspiracy for certain things to be actionable. Without it, there's really nothing to be done, which is a position with which I agree.

"From my perspective, it's quite silly, but it's a facet of their religion. I don't think they should be barred from believing it or speaking of it. In line with the way my country tends to deal with these things, I tend to think it's when they stop talking about how I should be punished and actually try to punish me, or make a specific call to punish me beyond the vague "as the book says, he's guilty of mushrik and should be punished!" bit that action should be taken."