General US Politics

[Time the Crestfallen]

Multiculturalism, as is, needs to crash and burn; particularly because while Western cultures are fairly similar to each other, there's a clear cut when it comes to Middle East/North African ones

Again, this seems like it is more of a problem with the current immigration crisis than a failing of multiculturalism. There's a big difference between immigrants who are heading for the US because they're seeking a better life/want to live there and immigrants who are fleeing for fear of war/death/etc. The latter leads to ghettoisation (particularly with such large numbers) and poor integration with the host culture while people in the former category are far more willing/able to adapt.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Phillius

[tuvarkz]

Again, this seems like it is more of a problem with the current immigration crisis than a failing of multiculturalism. There's a big difference between immigrants who are heading for the US because they're seeking a better life/want to live there and immigrants who are fleeing for fear of war/death/etc. The latter leads to ghettoisation (particularly with such large numbers) and poor integration with the host culture while people in the former category are far more willing/able to adapt.

Except that a considerable amount of the current 'refugees' aren't actually escaping from war-torn countries but sneaking in alongside the actual refugees just to gain the social/economic benefits of living in an European country.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Except that a considerable amount of the current 'refugees' aren't actually escaping from war-torn countries but sneaking in alongside the actual refugees just to gain the social/economic benefits of living in an European country.

And those people are going to get lumped in with the refugees, get sent to a location that will suffer from ghettoisation leading to the inevitable increase in crime, unemployment and racial tension. I'd also love to know what statistics you have that shows that a 'considerable' amount of the immigrants are doing so because of social/economic benefits, because I haven't seen anything that can prove it outside of the typical 'immigrants are lazy bums who just want to suck up tax payer money' rhetoric.

But back to my original point, the current immigration proves multiculturalism is bad because...?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Phillius

[tuvarkz]

Regarding immigrants by country of origin

Second quarter of 2015, of asylum seekers, only 21% are from Syria, plus another 13% from Aghanistan and 6% from Iraq

Total Q1 2015-Q1 2016 out of 1.35 Million asylum applicants, 434 thousand from Syria, 149 thousand from Iraq, 200 thousand from Afghanistan

The rest of the countries of origin aren't in relevant conflicts, or at least not in conflicts that aren't the everyday in those regions.

We have plenty of information about alleged refugees complaining about their situation, when they should be glad enough they aren't at a constant risk of attack.

We have the data that these people come from muslim-majority countries where there's overwhelmingly large support for sharia law, and plenty of terroristic attacks and other attacks on the local people that are caused in the large majority of cases by Muslim immigrants or second/third generation children of immigrants that haven't integrated into the local culture. Multiculturalism is largely allowing them to keep their savage practices and have the following generations keep them, causing the divide. Yes, being different is fine, but if a group's culture involves practices that Europe outlawed time ago, they should abandon those practices or else go back to their own countries.

[Time the Crestfallen]

We have the data that these people come from muslim-majority countries where there's overwhelmingly large support for sharia law, and plenty of terroristic attacks and other attacks on the local people that are caused in the large majority of cases by Muslim immigrants or second/third generation children of immigrants that haven't integrated into the local culture. Multiculturalism is largely allowing them to keep their savage practices and have the following generations keep them, causing the divide. Yes, being different is fine, but if a group's culture involves practices that Europe outlawed time ago, they should abandon those practices or else go back to their own countries.

I had a massive response prepared (and I might still use it, depending on how you respond) but if your problem is concerns about the incompatibility of Muslim-dominated cultures with the Western world, that's all you had to say. I'm not stupid, I'm well aware that there's definitely going to be issues in that regard. My problem was with your broad, sweeping statement about multiculturalism being bad in all cases. Because I live in Sydney Aus, which last I checked is the second most multicultural city in the world (behind Toronto) and going by your statements, the whole place should be constantly on fire and rioting. There's a difference between 'these two cultures aren't compatible in some aspects and that's going to cause problems' and 'multiculturalism is toxic and should be abandoned'.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Phillius

[tuvarkz]

I had a massive response prepared (and I might still use it, depending on how you respond) but if your problem is concerns about the incompatibility of Muslim-dominated cultures with the Western world, that's all you had to say. I'm not stupid, I'm well aware that there's definitely going to be issues in that regard. My problem was with your broad, sweeping statement about multiculturalism being bad in all cases. Because I live in Sydney Aus, which last I checked is the second most multicultural city in the world (behind Toronto) and going by your statements, the whole place should be constantly on fire and rioting. There's a difference between 'these two cultures aren't compatible in some aspects and that's going to cause problems' and 'multiculturalism is toxic and should be abandoned'.

Oh, my apologies, must've expressed myself inaccurately. A few posts back, when I wrote 'Multiculturalism, as is,' I meant about how multiculturalism is being handled by Western Europe and (to a lesser degree) the US, not about the concept as a whole.

[CyborgZeta]

Failure for Muslims to integrate, or problems with multiculturalism in general, are more of a European issue than an American one.

The US does not have a strong ethnic identity and culture tied to it, and literally anyone can call themselves an American.

It is harder in Europe due to the various ethnic groups, languages, identities and cultures. Countries like Poland, for instance, are strongly protective of their identity and culture; so the country does not accept many immigrants.

Even Merkel admitted back in 2010 that multiculturalism in Europe was a failure.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451

Edited July 28, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Moblin Major General]

Oh, my apologies, must've expressed myself inaccurately. A few posts back, when I wrote 'Multiculturalism, as is,' I meant about how multiculturalism is being handled by Western Europe and (to a lesser degree) the US, not about the concept as a whole.

I can agree that the European mentality of multiculturalism is flawed, and that America's has problems, but not to the extent of Europe. America has the opposite problem of Europe, in that we view ourselves as overcrowded, when in fact we have a lot of undeveloped land that's not owned by the federal government or a national or state park. We preach that we have problems of illegal immigration, but most of the problems we blame on it are just side effects of our flawed legal system. And South Park has a point about the people losing their unskilled jobs to immigrants, it's that anyone can do that job, and that some would rather expel them than adapt and go back to school. Not to mention that the people complaining about the problem are usually poor, uneducated whites. I don't like that they are breaking laws by not obtaining visas or passports, but immigration reform needs to go the opposite direction of where it's headed...

[CyborgZeta]

And South Park has a point about the people losing their unskilled jobs to immigrants, it's that anyone can do that job, and that some would rather expel them than adapt and go back to school.

The problem isn't so much that anyone can do the job, but that illegal immigrants will work for extremely low wages (with no benefits). You can't compete with that.

And telling people to "adapt and go back to school" is just snobbery. A lot of poor working-class people not only cannot afford to go back to school, but are simply to old to "adapt" to new jobs.

That's the problem in the Appalachia region. The region was built largely around a single industry, and when those jobs went away, people couldn't adjust because it was all they ever knew. Same with parts of the country that relied on manufacturing, or steel industry jobs.

Some people have tried to adapt to new industries, and then those industries went away; or those industries decided to opt for cheap labor (illegal immigrants or H-1B visas).

There comes a point where people just can't afford to have to keep re-adapting.

[Moblin Major General]

The problem isn't so much that anyone can do the job, but that illegal immigrants will work for extremely low wages (with no benefits). You can't compete with that.

And telling people to "adapt and go back to school" is just snobbery. A lot of poor working-class people not only cannot afford to go back to school, but are simply to old to "adapt" to new jobs.

That's the problem in the Appalachia region. The region was built largely around a single industry, and when those jobs went away, people couldn't adjust because it was all they ever knew. Same with parts of the country that relied on manufacturing, or steel industry jobs.

Some people have tried to adapt to new industries, and then those industries went away; or those industries decided to opt for cheap labor (illegal immigrants or H-1B visas).

There comes a point where people just can't afford to have to keep re-adapting.

Except that I deal with these sorts of people daily. The mentality is not "I can't", but rather " I refuse". The "I can't" people are helped, or are supposed to be, by the Government, because there is nothing for them. If they chose skilled jobs like plumbers, truckers, and electricians, people would be all over them due to the economy of the US being starved of maintenance workers of all kinds. They just want to whine, hate, and throw shade at anything that looks remotely Latino. Not conducive for getting businesses to pay attention to the fact you don't have the money to work. They would rather avoid hiring people who might be racist.

[CyborgZeta]

They just want to whine, hate, and throw shade at anything that looks remotely Latino.

So, you're going to generalize these people based off whatever personal experience you might have? Act like cheap labor isn't actually an issue?

It's easy to say, "Everyone should learn this", but not everyone is suited for those kinds of jobs. Whether it be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, whatever. It's not even just being suited for those kinds of jobs; a lot of people just can't do them, for whatever reason. I know I couldn't be a doctor, because the sight of too much blood makes me feel faint.

The other issue is mobility. Yeah, a lot of these poor probably don't want to leave; but a lot of them just can't afford to, even if they wanted to. Especially if you're in a state with not a lot of opportunities in general, because moving to another state is not cheap.

I don't pretend to know what ultimate solution is. Personally, I'm in favor of bringing back what industry we can. Allow people that want to do that kind of work to do them, and pay them fair wages.

[Phoenix Wright]

in turns of job availability, is cheap labor actually an issue?

[CyborgZeta]

Mostly in the Southwest and Southern states. Jobs like manufacturing, farming, and construction make a lot of use of cheap labor in those regions.

Ironically, loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs was a problem even in the past; since those jobs moved from the Midwest and the North to the South, where it was cheaper. So those jobs moved to the South, and now they're moving out of the US altogether.

Corporations are just greedy, and they'll always move to places where labor is the cheapest. Again, I don't claim to know the best solution to combat this.

Bernie wanted to tax corporations more and close loopholes that favored them. Trump wants to lower taxes for corporations and provide more incentive for doing business here.

Edited July 28, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

Bernie wanted to tax corporations more and close loopholes that favored them. Trump wants to lower taxes for corporations and provide more incentive for doing business here.

very true, meanwhile, what does Hillary plan to do about it?

i dunno, and i don't think she really has a plan for it either.

on the subject of jobs, i remember losing the chance to get a manufacturing job due to there just barely being any in my state because of all the outsourcing that i wouldn't be able to get without moving out of my state, which is something i just can't do for money and personal reasons.

so yeah, i do not like this "you can do it if you just had tons of money out of nowhere and moved to the jobs", i'd rather vote for someone that would take steps to solve the issue while i job search for more basic jobs.

[Augestein]

Well, yes, it totally would. Maybe if you attacked the airbases or something, but the fact is that the terrorists aren't attacking soldiers, they're attacking innocent civilians, and deliberately, unlike the Americans (in most cases). They are terrorists, plain and simple.

Why on earth would someone suddenly start attacking innocents if the military itself started to bomb civilians on US soil? And how would fighting back against that be a terrorist attack?

in turns of job availability, is cheap labor actually an issue?

Yes. As in, it's such a problem that if you have a degree and can't find a job in your field, you are screwed over even more than NOT having one. Because people that hire people with degrees believe that 1) You're more likely to leave because you have enough skill to find another job. 2) Can't be low-balled as easily because if they do, you'll leave faster, so they just plain don't hire them. The issue is that you're competing against people that can literally go under the enforced wages by being outside of the country. You simply can't beat someone when you ask for a job of stacking boxes, and the person can say... Ask for a $4.00 per hour sum of money and you cannot legally ask for that in the states.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Augestein

[Phoenix Wright]

yes, lax regulations and minimal taxing are desirable for business; no one is arguing that. the argument for regulation is not an economic one, it's more economic to treat employees like they're disposable, to ban unions, to place heavier tax burdens on those that can't afford it, etc. etc.

you don't make the united states factory industry more compelling by easing standards. that hurts everyone else. we can do it through subsidies, govt programs, etc. corporations need to pay taxes--they need to share the burden of them. i'd rather not sacrifice the well-being of citizens to bring in greedy business.

[Nobody]

very true, meanwhile, what does Hillary plan to do about it?

i dunno, and i don't think she really has a plan for it either.

as far as i know, her plans are keeping tax levels around what they currently are, which definitely IS a plan. You don't have to go changing everything for it to be a plan

EDIT: I googled it and found a summary of it here

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/17/Grading-Hillary-Clinton-s-Tax-Plan

right in the end of the article

Edited July 28, 2016 by Nobody

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

as far as i know, her plans are keeping tax levels around what they currently are, which definitely IS a plan. You don't have to go changing everything for it to be a plan

EDIT: I googled it and found a summary of it here

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/05/17/Grading-Hillary-Clinton-s-Tax-Plan

right in the end of the article

so her plan is to keeps things the same, which is the exact opposite of what i want, perfect.

i sure hope you weren't thinking this was going to make me change my mind.

Edited July 28, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Nobody]

so her plan is to keeps things the same, which is the exact opposite of what i want, perfect.

i sure hope you weren't thinking this was going to make me change my mind.

I wasn't, it's just that having a plan that is keeping things similar to what they are is completely different from not having a plan, which implies someone doesn't know nor care about the issue.

But like, would you rather taxes were either massively cut or massively hiked rather than keeping them how they currently are? Because that does not make much sense to me, simultaneously wanting them massively cut or hiked.

BTW, between hers, Sander's and Trump's plans, hers is the only one that wouldn't massively increase the debt

Edited July 28, 2016 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

how would sanders' massively increase debt?

[Nobody]

how would sanders' massively increase debt?

Sorry, not his tax plans in itself, but the fact that even the new higher taxes he proposed wouldn't be enough to pay for all the social programs he proposed, generating bigger deficits, according to most articles I've read, like this one:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/08/Sanders-s-Great-Society-Plan-Could-Add-15-Trillion-Debt

One could and, if that's what they think, should argue that the increase in debt would be worth all the other things they'd bring, but the added public expending would increase more than the amount of taxes. What could be argued, rather, is that, if the money is being used correctly, a increased debt isn't that bad.

Of course, that's assuming he'd be able to do all he wants to do. If he could increase the taxes like he wanted but didn't go as far with his social problems, the debt wouldn't increase that much.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Nobody

[Phoenix Wright]

the source is not accessible. also, providing a high-ball estimate vs sanders' campaign estimate isn't necessarily evidence of sanders' estimate being wrong. economics simply doesn't provide precision like that.

i can say that it appears that the source you gave is a yuge upper bound, like worst-case scenario.

[BBM]

@tuvarkz- multiculturalism isn't just blending together western culture with african/middle-eastern culture. Also, basing your entire opinion of non-Western cultures off Sharia law is so ignorant I don't even know what to say. This may shock you, but there are actually other cultures in the world! Multiculturalism is about taking what's best from all cultures and marrying them together.

[Ansem]

Sorry, not his tax plans in itself, but the fact that even the new higher taxes he proposed wouldn't be enough to pay for all the social programs he proposed, generating bigger deficits, according to most articles I've read, like this one:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/08/Sanders-s-Great-Society-Plan-Could-Add-15-Trillion-Debt

One could and, if that's what they think, should argue that the increase in debt would be worth all the other things they'd bring, but the added public expending would increase more than the amount of taxes. What could be argued, rather, is that, if the money is being used correctly, a increased debt isn't that bad.

Of course, that's assuming he'd be able to do all he wants to do. If he could increase the taxes like he wanted but didn't go as far with his social problems, the debt wouldn't increase that much.

Also there were like a lot of economists behind Sander's plan. That guy really knows how to prepare a college paper, but he lost because he is not a boring establishment politician.

I think this election might be like Brexit. The educated/liberal thought they could win, but the conservative/uneducated won.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Also there were like a lot of economists behind Sander's plan. That guy really knows how to prepare a college paper, but he lost because he is not a boring establishment politician.

I think this election might be like Brexit. The educated/liberal thought they could win, but the conservative/uneducated won.

The similarities are a little eerie. Both are being carried to success by a disillusioned working class that perceives the current system as not caring about/failing them, both were dismissed as a joke by the liberal/middle class + at the start (although people are taking Trump seriously now), the supporters are labelled as racists/sexists/bigots by the liberals without making any attempt to understand why they would be so popular, both inspire strong amounts of nationalism and, more likely than not, both will simply take advantage of the working class and completely fail to deliver what they promise (350 million per week for NHS anyone?).