Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Vive la France

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    It has been proven that improved enforcement of the criminal code, with jail sentences for serious crimes, has reduced criminal behavior in open society. I might be less sarcastic with such a simple statement, but it is the right response to your first comment. As for Macron's ideas on immigration, what makes you believe he would encourage sloppy law enforcement, such as giving muslims a free pass that others don't receive, or allowing open immigration without prior examination for each case? In your quote, he proposes law enforcement, including investigation before allowing immigration. Further, his comments indicate he would "add on" law/investigation services, above what is provided by EU resources.

    A 100% enforcement of "no more muslims" would be a nice sound bite for right wing nationalists, and also impossible to accomplish at a reasonable financial cost. Similar to someone claiming they could clean up all criminal behavior.
    No more muslim immigrants is what 55% of Europeans want. I don't see why it couldn't be done.

    ?


    • #92
      Originally posted by Voland View Post


      Sigh. Macron served as minister under a socialist president, but he was never a member of the Socialist Party ( or any other) except his LREM ("La Republique en marche"). He was signed up when Francois Hollande tried to reinvent himself as an economic reformer and he quit when it was increasingly obvious that Hollande lacked the authority and the guts to push through the measures that Macron considered necessary. Also in the US presidents appoint members of the other party or independents to ministerial posts every now and then, right ? But since this example of sloppy research has made it also on Wikipedia beeing mistaken here might be excusable.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7796996.html

      As president however Macron has appointed a Prime Minister, an economics and a finance minister from the right. Fact. And as a campaigner he has crushed the Socialist Party ( pretty much), that has been declared "dead" by Macrons former superior, ex-Prime Minister Manuel Valls

      https://www.ft.com/content/a2544c30-...d-13beb0903fa3

      Unions and lefties are the ones leading the fight against his labour reforms ( so far with moderate success), but dont let the facts disturb you:


      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/w...labor-law.html

      As far as the EU is concerned : Frances muslim communities have not arrived from any other part of the European Union, but from the countrys former colonial empire and usually in pre-EU times . What part of open borders FOR MEMBERS and BETWEEN MEMBERS is hard to understand ? An open border by the way is not an unpoliced one and it does not mean no controls, that is nonsense. But you would have to grasp how a properly enforced ID system works. I live close to three borders, and on my way to work I am passing at least one border two times, every day. I have citizenship of two EU members, I am married to a citizen of a third and I have family spread across four member countries. We are changing very easily between borders, languages, cultures and countries as a matter of everyday business here and all over Europe open borders have transformed regions that were once impoverished backwaters, often scarred by wars of the past into thriving, multilingual cross-border hubs for business and investment. From my office in Luxembourg I can visit my aunt in France on the way home, while also bringing some real belgian beer from Belgium for friends in Germany. Doable. I can also be in Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam or Cologne within a few hours or take the plane to Italy or Spain without any bureaucracy bullshit. Yet what I would neverever do is to leave the house in Germany WITHOUT my ID and my insurance card. Because without that personal identification I could be stopped by police around the corner or across the border, I would be refused a hotel room or boarding a plane, I couldnt sign a contract, rent a place or show up at the doctors. And since I have to use my ID in countless everyday transactions it is pretty easy to track me. Or anybody else. Everyone is registered here, police are sharing their databases and that is how an open borders Regime can work. As far as imigration is concerned : While EU citizens are generally free to move, seek work or study in other member countries they must prove to have sufficient funds not to rely on benefits, to be working or to be enrolled in education within three months. If they dont, than any EU Country can expel any EU citizen just as well as for criminal actvity. As far as non Union citizens are concerned, everyone can draw up his own rules on Immigration. Fact

      parl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.3.html


      So Merkel barely survived a vicious attack with a bunch of tomatoes ? So what ? She leads the polls by 20 % or so and she is going to stay chancellor. The fact that some of the same media outlets that not Long ago wasted considerable typing space for her political obituaries are now passing this around as big News says more about the Quality of their coverage of Germany than about Merkel.
      Merkel will win again because not enough people are pissed off enough yet, only the ones in the areas that have taken the brunt of her welcome mat policy.

      ?


      • #93
        Originally posted by Brexx View Post

        No more muslim immigrants is what 55% of Europeans want. I don't see why it couldn't be done.
        That would be equivalent to the US expecting no more immigrants from Latin America. A majority of nativists might want it, and they might be in the voting majority at the moment. The gov't. they elected might even claim they will follow the will of the majority who voted. Then, the gov't. will allow a certain number of LA immigrants into the country, anyway. Because they are directly bordering the US, because the US may need labor (skilled and/or unskilled), or certain countries are in crisis.

        Supposing a right-wing party takes power, they would do much better by strictly enforcing the law against organized crime, as well as "independents" using violence against the citizenry. If they claim muslims are the bad guys, it will make them look bad if they crow about shutting down muslim immigration, only to follow up with a confession that the home-grown organized (or disorganized) criminals are still preying upon the citizens. No one likes being played, even if they prefer to ignore the facts.

        ?


        • #94
          Originally posted by Brexx View Post

          Merkel will win again because not enough people are pissed off enough yet, only the ones in the areas that have taken the brunt of her welcome mat policy.


          Sigh, Merkels approval rating stands at around 60 % currently. She will pretty certainly be reelected because unemployment is at a record low, public budgets are in the black ( yes, in spite of the refugees that the country took in 2015/2016), because she has proven to be a capable, calm, non-ideological and nifty manager of german politics and interests and has weathered more than a couple of crises in that she usually had the last laugh. Precisely because she is the long-term oriented accountant type of politician, not the short-term oriented, headline-grabbing poser type.
          And that makes her capable of bold moves at times. Merkel has often taken calculated political gambles for that she paid in the short -term, but she always bounced back when her bet paid off and/or when her opponents could not come up with a convincing position of their own.
          Almost exactly two years ago, when tens of thousands of refugees were arriving, per day, on the greek islands close to the turkish coast, Greece was creaking and pleading for help, Italy was showing huge signs of strain, several balcan countries were on the edge of declaring martial law and clearly incapable of housing and sheltering this avalanche of people, Merkel could have turned the other way US/UK style, claiming "not my business", which would have been neither a sensible nor a practical idea ( a look at the map might help to illustrate why), or have bet on Germanys considerable experience with refugee waves of the past, its financial and administrative capabilities not to let the refugee crisis out of control. That is why her governement decided to let the majority of these people come to Germany TO BE SORTED OUT in those with letigimate claims to asylum ( such as Syrians with valid documents) and those without ( rejections 2016 alone were around 200 000). That policy has ended with the refugee deal with Turkey by the way ( but I am not expecting you to know that).
          And of course, properly registering, accomodating and sorting out so many people in such a short timeframe has created issues of its own. Yet by far most voters in Germany understand that the nonsensical and impractical attempt to shut down borders would have sent economic shockwaves far beyond Europe, and that the attempt to let Greece and Italy go to the dogs would have blown up the European Union. And that thus taking the refugees was the lesser of two problems.
          That there is no such thing as a welcome mat has already been pointed out to you :

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...courses-under/


          And well, anti-immigration voters can choose the far-right AFD, if they wish. Yet that is polling somewhere in the single Digits and has clearly not been able to capitalize from the refugee crisis. And not because people wouldnt understand events in their own country. Fact.

          ?


          • #95
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            That would be equivalent to the US expecting no more immigrants from Latin America. A majority of nativists might want it, and they might be in the voting majority at the moment. The gov't. they elected might even claim they will follow the will of the majority who voted. Then, the gov't. will allow a certain number of LA immigrants into the country, anyway. Because they are directly bordering the US, because the US may need labor (skilled and/or unskilled), or certain countries are in crisis.

            Supposing a right-wing party takes power, they would do much better by strictly enforcing the law against organized crime, as well as "independents" using violence against the citizenry. If they claim muslims are the bad guys, it will make them look bad if they crow about shutting down muslim immigration, only to follow up with a confession that the home-grown organized (or disorganized) criminals are still preying upon the citizens. No one likes being played, even if they prefer to ignore the facts.
            The majority in the US does not want to stop all immigration from LA or anywhere else. They do want something done about ILLEGAL immigration. I don't understand the mentality of these sanctuary cities. Who in their right mind wants to encourage more illegal immigrants?

            In Europe cutting off all immigration from muslim countries would not stop the crime and the rioting and the terrorist acts by the people already in the country, but when you have a problem the first thing to do is stop adding to it.

            In France the unemployment rate for young people is 25%. The only people they should be bringing in is people with money who want to set up businesses and create jobs, if any such people want to go to France.

            ?


            • #96
              Originally posted by Voland View Post



              Sigh, Merkels approval rating stands at around 60 % currently. She will pretty certainly be reelected because unemployment is at a record low, public budgets are in the black ( yes, in spite of the refugees that the country took in 2015/2016), because she has proven to be a capable, calm, non-ideological and nifty manager of german politics and interests and has weathered more than a couple of crises in that she usually had the last laugh. Precisely because she is the long-term oriented accountant type of politician, not the short-term oriented, headline-grabbing poser type.
              And that makes her capable of bold moves at times. Merkel has often taken calculated political gambles for that she paid in the short -term, but she always bounced back when her bet paid off and/or when her opponents could not come up with a convincing position of their own.
              Almost exactly two years ago, when tens of thousands of refugees were arriving, per day, on the greek islands close to the turkish coast, Greece was creaking and pleading for help, Italy was showing huge signs of strain, several balcan countries were on the edge of declaring martial law and clearly incapable of housing and sheltering this avalanche of people, Merkel could have turned the other way US/UK style, claiming "not my business", which would have been neither a sensible nor a practical idea ( a look at the map might help to illustrate why), or have bet on Germanys considerable experience with refugee waves of the past, its financial and administrative capabilities not to let the refugee crisis out of control. That is why her governement decided to let the majority of these people come to Germany TO BE SORTED OUT in those with letigimate claims to asylum ( such as Syrians with valid documents) and those without ( rejections 2016 alone were around 200 000). That policy has ended with the refugee deal with Turkey by the way ( but I am not expecting you to know that).
              And of course, properly registering, accomodating and sorting out so many people in such a short timeframe has created issues of its own. Yet by far most voters in Germany understand that the nonsensical and impractical attempt to shut down borders would have sent economic shockwaves far beyond Europe, and that the attempt to let Greece and Italy go to the dogs would have blown up the European Union. And that thus taking the refugees was the lesser of two problems.
              That there is no such thing as a welcome mat has already been pointed out to you :

              http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...courses-under/


              And well, anti-immigration voters can choose the far-right AFD, if they wish. Yet that is polling somewhere in the single Digits and has clearly not been able to capitalize from the refugee crisis. And not because people wouldnt understand events in their own country. Fact.
              The popularity of a leader or a party does not tell us much about public opinion regarding separate issues. In Germany 53% support a ban on all immigration from muslim countries.

              ?


              • #97
                Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                The majority in the US does not want to stop all immigration from LA or anywhere else. They do want something done about ILLEGAL immigration. I don't understand the mentality of these sanctuary cities. Who in their right mind wants to encourage more illegal immigrants?

                In Europe cutting off all immigration from muslim countries would not stop the crime and the rioting and the terrorist acts by the people already in the country, but when you have a problem the first thing to do is stop adding to it.

                In France the unemployment rate for young people is 25%. The only people they should be bringing in is people with money who want to set up businesses and create jobs, if any such people want to go to France.
                Unemployment in France was a problem before the refugee crisis. I'm sure I miss a few details, but I'm willing to bet a modest wager that France used a dusty, old socialist party policy to arrive at that 25% unemployment. One that resembles the US policy of "paying people to not work". Any unemployment insurance (whether private or public welfare policy) that just pays people to "look for work" falls way short of a solution. Provide work or a work/re-training mix, in exchange for a mediocre paycheck, and we have a solution. To head off your "gummint is the problem" complaint, I've always advocated for a private/public partnership for a full-employment objective. Look at Germany or Denmark's programs for an idea how that works.

                As far as cutting off further immigration from muslim countries, you walked into the same trap with the same blindfold. Your hypothesis is, "muslims are causing most of the crime problem" in France. My hypothesis is, "The police need to remove a larger chunk of the violent, dysfunctional population to prison. The great majority of those people are probably not muslim". We may find out who is right, supposing French law enforcement and judicial agencies record who they send off to the hoosegow as they (hopefully) get a handle on their situation.

                Yet another modest wager on my part: The majority of that dysfunctional violence is due to a mix of unemployment, home-grown organized crime that was never quite controlled over the last several decades, and a weak gov't. reaction (positive and negative) to get a handle on it, up to present time.

                ?


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                  The popularity of a leader or a party does not tell us much about public opinion regarding separate issues. In Germany 53% support a ban on all immigration from muslim countries.


                  The popularity of a leader tells you how much or how little the public approves of his/her handling of key issues in his/her tenure. If the refugee crisis was the issue that you are claiming it is than voters would have an anti-immigration, anti-Islam, "Germany first/ber alles" alternative to vote for, the AFD ( so to say the german UKIP/National Front/Wilders ilk). Yet all polls demonstrate that the latter will be an insignificant group of backbenchers in the coming parliament, but that Merkel will be returned to the chancellery. The reasons for her popularity are completely transparent, no need for guessing or imagining and are also easy to Google, basically they come down to the fact that most voters consider themselves to be better off than when she took office in 2005. Rising wages, very low unemployment including youth unemployment, largely sound public finances, and the economy under full steam. The numbers are out there and easy to document, No problem. And additionally she has demonstrated that she can effectively represent Germany on the european and global stage, without posturing and grandstanding, and also to take a long view of national key interests. Yes, it was politically risky and costly to step in the refugee crisis to take pressure off the european partners most affected. Yet it would have been politically riskier and more costly not to do so, and have threatened stability in southeastern Europe. Someone who doesnt have to live with the consequences of a particular decision can obviously always offer smart-ass lectures. ( How would you seal off the greek islands or the Mediterranean ? No idea ? Thought so. And leaving a million or so people without accomodation, care and registration and in the approaching winter would have made us safer ? Keep telling yourself that)
                  Believing that Merkel made the right call or largely the right call when faced with undesirable alternatives in the refugee crisis does not at all mean to subscribe to any particular view of immigration. And that is what the polls are demonstrating.
                  Because refugees arent immigrants. ( has already been pointed out as well). Refugee status ( if granted, which is not a given), gives you protection and SOME RIGHTS on a TEMPORARY base. As a refugee you have to live in a place that the governement assigns you to, that you can only leave with permission from police (usually until you start working and earn your own money). You get an ID that has an expiry date on it, until when the carrier has either to get a new one or leave the country. Refugees HAVE to attend language and so-called cultural integration courses, children are sent to school and the message is hammered from day one that whoever wants a chance to apply for a residency visa HAS to document language skills, job, and/or qualifications that guarantee employment plus a clean criminal record. Who doesnt meet any of these requirements or doesnt apply--is sent home sooner or later, usually as soon as the situation back home allows it. During the big refugee wave in the 90s ( from former Yugoslavia, when Germany also took hundreds of thousands), the quota was more or less 70 % (going home), 30 % (stay, usually the young and productive that had completed their education in Germany). There is no reason at all to assume that this will be different for the Syrians. That is the deal and has always been the deal since decades.
                  Any debate about muslim or non-muslim immigration is besides the point for anyone actually living in Germany. The country has recieved immigration for the last five/six decades, including millions of Turks (unemployment among the turkish community is no higher than among non-turkish Germans. Source ? No problem). The idea of integration has always been to put participation in the labour market first and last, while not particularly bothering about cultural sensitivities. And since participation in the labour market always includes a huge degree of training and education, including picking up the language in a skills-based economy like Germanys resisting Integration at the same time is pretty much not possible, regardless of cultural origins. Integration through work :

                  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...at-we-learned/

                  ?


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    Unemployment in France was a problem before the refugee crisis. I'm sure I miss a few details, but I'm willing to bet a modest wager that France used a dusty, old socialist party policy to arrive at that 25% unemployment. One that resembles the US policy of "paying people to not work". Any unemployment insurance (whether private or public welfare policy) that just pays people to "look for work" falls way short of a solution. Provide work or a work/re-training mix, in exchange for a mediocre paycheck, and we have a solution. To head off your "gummint is the problem" complaint, I've always advocated for a private/public partnership for a full-employment objective. Look at Germany or Denmark's programs for an idea how that works.

                    As far as cutting off further immigration from muslim countries, you walked into the same trap with the same blindfold. Your hypothesis is, "muslims are causing most of the crime problem" in France. My hypothesis is, "The police need to remove a larger chunk of the violent, dysfunctional population to prison. The great majority of those people are probably not muslim". We may find out who is right, supposing French law enforcement and judicial agencies record who they send off to the hoosegow as they (hopefully) get a handle on their situation.

                    Yet another modest wager on my part: The majority of that dysfunctional violence is due to a mix of unemployment, home-grown organized crime that was never quite controlled over the last several decades, and a weak gov't. reaction (positive and negative) to get a handle on it, up to present time.
                    I didn't say the unemployment problem in France was caused by the refugee crisis. What I'm saying is France ought to figure out how to employ the people they have before bringing in more immigrants. Macron plans to change the labor code so we'll see how that turns out.

                    I'm not saying muslims are causing most of the crime in France. I have no idea what percentage is committed by muslims. Making people feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, and unsafe in certain areas is not a crime. France has been under a state of emergency since 2015. This is not because of ordinary criminals.

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Voland View Post



                      The popularity of a leader tells you how much or how little the public approves of his/her handling of key issues in his/her tenure. If the refugee crisis was the issue that you are claiming it is than voters would have an anti-immigration, anti-Islam, "Germany first/ber alles" alternative to vote for, the AFD ( so to say the german UKIP/National Front/Wilders ilk). Yet all polls demonstrate that the latter will be an insignificant group of backbenchers in the coming parliament, but that Merkel will be returned to the chancellery. The reasons for her popularity are completely transparent, no need for guessing or imagining and are also easy to Google, basically they come down to the fact that most voters consider themselves to be better off than when she took office in 2005. Rising wages, very low unemployment including youth unemployment, largely sound public finances, and the economy under full steam. The numbers are out there and easy to document, No problem. And additionally she has demonstrated that she can effectively represent Germany on the european and global stage, without posturing and grandstanding, and also to take a long view of national key interests. Yes, it was politically risky and costly to step in the refugee crisis to take pressure off the european partners most affected. Yet it would have been politically riskier and more costly not to do so, and have threatened stability in southeastern Europe. Someone who doesnt have to live with the consequences of a particular decision can obviously always offer smart-ass lectures. ( How would you seal off the greek islands or the Mediterranean ? No idea ? Thought so. And leaving a million or so people without accomodation, care and registration and in the approaching winter would have made us safer ? Keep telling yourself that)
                      Believing that Merkel made the right call or largely the right call when faced with undesirable alternatives in the refugee crisis does not at all mean to subscribe to any particular view of immigration. And that is what the polls are demonstrating.
                      Because refugees arent immigrants. ( has already been pointed out as well). Refugee status ( if granted, which is not a given), gives you protection and SOME RIGHTS on a TEMPORARY base. As a refugee you have to live in a place that the governement assigns you to, that you can only leave with permission from police (usually until you start working and earn your own money). You get an ID that has an expiry date on it, until when the carrier has either to get a new one or leave the country. Refugees HAVE to attend language and so-called cultural integration courses, children are sent to school and the message is hammered from day one that whoever wants a chance to apply for a residency visa HAS to document language skills, job, and/or qualifications that guarantee employment plus a clean criminal record. Who doesnt meet any of these requirements or doesnt apply--is sent home sooner or later, usually as soon as the situation back home allows it. During the big refugee wave in the 90s ( from former Yugoslavia, when Germany also took hundreds of thousands), the quota was more or less 70 % (going home), 30 % (stay, usually the young and productive that had completed their education in Germany). There is no reason at all to assume that this will be different for the Syrians. That is the deal and has always been the deal since decades.
                      Any debate about muslim or non-muslim immigration is besides the point for anyone actually living in Germany. The country has recieved immigration for the last five/six decades, including millions of Turks (unemployment among the turkish community is no higher than among non-turkish Germans. Source ? No problem). The idea of integration has always been to put participation in the labour market first and last, while not particularly bothering about cultural sensitivities. And since participation in the labour market always includes a huge degree of training and education, including picking up the language in a skills-based economy like Germanys resisting Integration at the same time is pretty much not possible, regardless of cultural origins. Integration through work :

                      https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/...at-we-learned/
                      The economy usually trumps all other issues at election time. If Germany has done well under Merkel obviously she gets a boost from that. The survey shows that most German citizens don't like seeing so many muslims in their country, but so far its not the biggest issue come election time. Also, I understand the AFD are not well organized and don't have their act together well enough to attract many voters.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                        I didn't say the unemployment problem in France was caused by the refugee crisis. What I'm saying is France ought to figure out how to employ the people they have before bringing in more immigrants. Macron plans to change the labor code so we'll see how that turns out.

                        I'm not saying muslims are causing most of the crime in France. I have no idea what percentage is committed by muslims. Making people feel unwelcome, uncomfortable, and unsafe in certain areas is not a crime. France has been under a state of emergency since 2015. This is not because of ordinary criminals.
                        The law & order predicament in France, based on what I've learned, is largely caused by lack of employment. Law enforcement was poorly supported by gov't. policy, which used the same, worn out methods to deal with unemployment. High unemployment is one of the major causes of high crime rates. Icing on this shit cake, is the refugee crisis, which the cops also have to handle. If only police had a political spokesperson to comment on the quality of support they receive from their employers (aka, "politicians").

                        If Paris' law enforcement had been supported by politicians who admitted to failed policy starting decades ago, and moved to policy that actually gets results, they would have less crime (unemployment) to deal with, and more resources to help convict people who assault and threaten undercover police. The average citizen isn't going to resist when someone makes them feel unsafe, but a trained undercover cop (anti-extortion) can do just that, and flush out bad actors.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          The law & order predicament in France, based on what I've learned, is largely caused by lack of employment. Law enforcement was poorly supported by gov't. policy, which used the same, worn out methods to deal with unemployment. High unemployment is one of the major causes of high crime rates. Icing on this shit cake, is the refugee crisis, which the cops also have to handle. If only police had a political spokesperson to comment on the quality of support they receive from their employers (aka, "politicians").

                          If Paris' law enforcement had been supported by politicians who admitted to failed policy starting decades ago, and moved to policy that actually gets results, they would have less crime (unemployment) to deal with, and more resources to help convict people who assault and threaten undercover police. The average citizen isn't going to resist when someone makes them feel unsafe, but a trained undercover cop (anti-extortion) can do just that, and flush out bad actors.
                          When people in France were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: "All further immigration from mostly Muslim countries should be stopped", only 16% disagreed. 61% agreed, the rest neither agreed nor disagreed. This is about a lot more than just crime rates.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                            The economy usually trumps all other issues at election time. If Germany has done well under Merkel obviously she gets a boost from that. The survey shows that most German citizens don't like seeing so many muslims in their country, but so far its not the biggest issue come election time. Also, I understand the AFD are not well organized and don't have their act together well enough to attract many voters.

                            The problem with international surveys is always to properly understand the context of the countries polled, and to know the PRECISE questions in various languages, besides the usual traps ( how representative is the polled group? etc.
                            I will give you an example : Germans are generally rather relaxed about immigration. That is also supportable by data and has obvious reasons : The economic strength beeing the most important. The country has pretty much, with few and short exceptions, sucked in workers since WW II, and not exported them. And it makes a hell of a difference if immigrants arrive as workers with a job and a purpose and not f.e. as colonial/ex-colonial subjects. And then Germans have a comparatively high trust in their countrys ability to weather crises ( like bouncing back from dust, rubble and total devastation, or beeing saddled with the task of rebuilding the bancrupt ex-communist eastern state.), and in the ability of their labour market to work as a motor for integration ( which has been proven again and again and again. With Turks, with Poles, with Yugoslavs, with Russians, with Italians, Greeks and Vietnamese etc.) The Syrians would not be the first culturally diverse group that after some time adapt. Those willing and capable to pass through german education/job training get their chance ( and that doesnt work without integration), those unwilling and/or incapable return once their refugee status runs out, because it DOES run out. Protection from prosecution is a human right. Residency has to be earned. And that has happened before. And then : People are relaxed about their jobs. In spite of Germany beeing a hotspot of immigration the country has a lack, not an oversupply of workers. Domestic ones are protected via minimum wage/equal pay for equal work rules (unskilled), and imposing vocational/academical degree requirements plus workers co-determination (skilled). Someone who worked as an accountant back in Syria can work as one in Germany, IF he/she manages to obtain the proper degrees, passes through school, picks up the language up to professional level and passes a few other criteria. And by that moment he/she will cost just as much as a German. Undercutting wages doesnt work.
                            If you were now asking Germans on the street wether they would welcome another wave like in autumn 2015, the answer would be a resounding "No". Most people outside the extreme right will accept that Merkel has neither made a "mistake", nor "welcomed everyone" ( that is a lie), but responded to a humanitarian emergency that was threatening (also) german interests, but they will want to limit an effort like that--to emergencies ( which is a statement of fact, not pro-or anti Muslims) . Beeing questioned about "muslim" immigration most people will respond that for them immigrants have to be either skilled already or have to capable of beeing schooled and trained and that THIS is the main criteria that should apply to immigration in general. With a little spin one might translate that into opposition against muslim immigration. But it is not the entire story. In general, the Turks are a fact of life in Germany since two generations or so, they are people with a strong work ethic and rather conservative life values, and they are causing few problems ( beeing not more often criminal or unemployed than Germans which is also supportable by data). Russians and Poles are FAR more often showing up in the statistic, requesting benefits and/or breaking the law, and they are christian and european. Fact. And people are aware of that.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by Voland View Post


                              The problem with international surveys is always to properly understand the context of the countries polled, and to know the PRECISE questions in various languages, besides the usual traps ( how representative is the polled group? etc.
                              I will give you an example : Germans are generally rather relaxed about immigration. That is also supportable by data and has obvious reasons : The economic strength beeing the most important. The country has pretty much, with few and short exceptions, sucked in workers since WW II, and not exported them. And it makes a hell of a difference if immigrants arrive as workers with a job and a purpose and not f.e. as colonial/ex-colonial subjects. And then Germans have a comparatively high trust in their countrys ability to weather crises ( like bouncing back from dust, rubble and total devastation, or beeing saddled with the task of rebuilding the bancrupt ex-communist eastern state.), and in the ability of their labour market to work as a motor for integration ( which has been proven again and again and again. With Turks, with Poles, with Yugoslavs, with Russians, with Italians, Greeks and Vietnamese etc.) The Syrians would not be the first culturally diverse group that after some time adapt. Those willing and capable to pass through german education/job training get their chance ( and that doesnt work without integration), those unwilling and/or incapable return once their refugee status runs out, because it DOES run out. Protection from prosecution is a human right. Residency has to be earned. And that has happened before. And then : People are relaxed about their jobs. In spite of Germany beeing a hotspot of immigration the country has a lack, not an oversupply of workers. Domestic ones are protected via minimum wage/equal pay for equal work rules (unskilled), and imposing vocational/academical degree requirements plus workers co-determination (skilled). Someone who worked as an accountant back in Syria can work as one in Germany, IF he/she manages to obtain the proper degrees, passes through school, picks up the language up to professional level and passes a few other criteria. And by that moment he/she will cost just as much as a German. Undercutting wages doesnt work.
                              If you were now asking Germans on the street wether they would welcome another wave like in autumn 2015, the answer would be a resounding "No". Most people outside the extreme right will accept that Merkel has neither made a "mistake", nor "welcomed everyone" ( that is a lie), but responded to a humanitarian emergency that was threatening (also) german interests, but they will want to limit an effort like that--to emergencies ( which is a statement of fact, not pro-or anti Muslims) . Beeing questioned about "muslim" immigration most people will respond that for them immigrants have to be either skilled already or have to capable of beeing schooled and trained and that THIS is the main criteria that should apply to immigration in general. With a little spin one might translate that into opposition against muslim immigration. But it is not the entire story. In general, the Turks are a fact of life in Germany since two generations or so, they are people with a strong work ethic and rather conservative life values, and they are causing few problems ( beeing not more often criminal or unemployed than Germans which is also supportable by data). Russians and Poles are FAR more often showing up in the statistic, requesting benefits and/or breaking the law, and they are christian and european. Fact. And people are aware of that.
                              Chatham House is a well respected organization, and in their survey they asked 10,000 people from 10 EU countries to agree or disagree with a very simple straight forward statement. "All further immigration from mostly Mulsim countries should be stopped." Only 19% of respondents in Germany disagreed with that statement. The message from that is undeniable. Most Germans think they have quite enough Muslims in their country.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                                If the migrants are not to blame for the harassment why are migrants' rights groups involved? Because they are being falsely accused? And if that is the case, who could possibly be mistaken for a Muslin migrant? A white Frenchman? I doubt it. If it is all the fault of these "criminal network" types they must look an awful lot like Muslims. Probably because they are. You think? Who else has this attitude that women don't belong out in public, and if they are they must be sluts? So this may not be strictly a migrant problem, but it is obviously a Muslim problem.
                                You have progressed in the last week (when your quoted post above was made), from accusing the muslim migrants of criminal activity, to being "incompatible" with certain host EU cultures. That is a slight improvement.

                                The incompatible argument leads to the next question: What is the portion of muslims in France? It is at 7-9%, according to world atlas link (below). Here's a quote from that link, on an additional reason why I think EU countries are accepting large numbers:
                                The population growth rate is estimated at 0.45% while the death rate is at 9.06 deaths per 1000 population.
                                http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/r...of-france.html

                                Supposing France adopts a more proactive approach to acculturation, similar to Germany's, they may be able to reduce the portion of muslims. It might not be the low figure of around 5% that Germany has, but let's face some history: France was a much more enthusiastic practitioner of colonial exploitation in muslim countries, than was Germany. Ex-colonies have some perks with the ex-empire.

                                As Voland notes, many of the muslims there should be sent back, as they prove they are not intending to acculturate to their host country. It is my belief that for those muslim immigrants who stay, their host country (France in this case) hopes the first generation will have many children born in the country. That was the very same reason the US gov't. has allowed a de facto refugee surge from Latin America -to stave off a population collapse in reaction to a secure yet somewhat expensive material lifestyle. However, the second and succeeding generations will likely follow the same strategy as their non-muslim countrymen, in having small families. The reason this isn't discussed in much of the press is because the subject is (at the same time) "dull socioeconomics" and an uncomfortable look at the "end game" for capitalism as we know it.

                                The temporary nature of much of the recent muslim refugee population, due to a "failing state" crisis in nearby ME countries, was already well argued by Voland. Likewise, V.'s reasoning behind the EU major states accepting large numbers, for now.
                                Last edited by radcentr; 1 week ago.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X