Are people not responsible for their own actions anymore?

[Diddums]

 

[vanillaface]

You denounce communism, and yet you also denounce capitalism by being anti-globalism, so what is it, what do you actually want?

Or maybe you can explain how globalism isn't capitalism-max?

And no i will NOT accept a ****** youtube video.

Globalism = corporatism. This is why big business supports globalism.
Corporatism isn't capitalism.

Do you remember the financial crash of 2007/8? The bailouts were an example of corporate socialism. The only place which employed the rules of capitalism was Iceland.
The EU, for example, is a corporatist entity. It is run for the benefit of European big business; specifically German big business; more specifically, German engineering big business, and even more specifically, German car manufacturing.

 

[vanillaface]

Though I understand the idealogy of some Mexicans for that, I don't think the average person crossing the border is thinking in those terms, especially when they are taking their children. I'm sure they are just wanting a better life for their kids.

A person crossing the border illegally might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.
A person burgling a house might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.
A person dealing heroin might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.

Why are the legal inhabitants of the USA responsible for providing a better life for the kids of non-Americans?
Why is someone with a house responsible for providing a better life for the offspring of burglars?
Why are the people of a society responsible for providing heroin dealers with money to make their kids' lives better?

So the question needs to be asked of how we can solve this problem of south americans feeling the need to head north. I'm sure with the right investment in to Mexico, and reduced corruption, it would be a very good place in its own right.

How can WE solve this problem?
Why must WE solve this problem?
Can we not trust the Mexicans to make a good society for themselves?
Has the USA not been trading with Mexico and hence enriching it?

 

[GGizmo]

A person crossing the border illegally might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.
A person burgling a house might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.
A person dealing heroin might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.

Why are the legal inhabitants of the USA responsible for providing a better life for the kids of non-Americans?
Why is someone with a house responsible for providing a better life for the offspring of burglars?
Why are the people of a society responsible for providing heroin dealers with money to make their kids' lives better?

How can WE solve this problem?
Why must WE solve this problem?
Can we not trust the Mexicans to make a good society for themselves?
Has the USA not been trading with Mexico and hence enriching it?

I can understand the points you are making, and I've held those views before. But those views don't solve the problem, and it'll just keep getting worse.

I know this might trigger some people. But when there is a corrupt failing government like Mexico that it seems quite a lot want to flee from, then the only way to solve the problem of immigrants at your door is to take over the other place.

If the US wants to stop the flooding of migrants on its borders, due to a corrupt country, then its in their interest to get involved. It's interesting that the US government never talks about regime change with Mexico.

The sad reality probably is that some people profit from misery and don't want to make corrupt places safe again. So the problem will keep going, with ever more increasing numbers of migrants at the border. How far can the US go without being more proactive against the Mexican government?

I'm not disputing what your saying. But I'm trying to figure out a solution. At the moment everything seems to be a continuous stalemate as things slowly get worse.

 

[wesimmo]

A person crossing the border illegally might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.
A person burgling a house might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.
A person dealing heroin might be doing it to provide a better life for their kids.

Why are the legal inhabitants of the USA responsible for providing a better life for the kids of non-Americans?
Why is someone with a house responsible for providing a better life for the offspring of burglars?
Why are the people of a society responsible for providing heroin dealers with money to make their kids' lives better?


How can WE solve this problem?
Why must WE solve this problem?
Can we not trust the Mexicans to make a good society for themselves?
Has the USA not been trading with Mexico and hence enriching it?

The US has a responsibility to Mexico and the rest of Central and South America.

It is the cause of one of the biggest issues in many countries, the cartels. The West, and largely the US create the demand that creates the social problems.

Also, as one of the world's biggest polluters, and with a moron in charge trying to make it worse, they have a massive responsibility to support those displaced or impacted economically by what needs to be done to save the human way of life as it stands.

 

[vanillaface]

I can understand the points you are making, and I've held those views before. But those views don't solve the problem, and it'll just keep getting worse.

I know this might trigger some people. But when there is a corrupt failing government like Mexico that it seems quite a lot want to flee from, then the only way to solve the problem of immigrants at your door is to take over the other place.

If the US wants to stop the flooding of migrants on its borders, due to a corrupt country, then its in their interest to get involved. It's interesting that the US government never talks about regime change with Mexico.

The sad reality probably is that some people profit from misery and don't want to make corrupt places safe again. So the problem will keep going, with ever more increasing numbers of migrants at the border. How far can the US go without being more proactive against the Mexican government?

I'm not disputing what your saying. But I'm trying to figure out a solution. At the moment everything seems to be a continuous stalemate as things slowly get worse.

Well, the US doesn't have to invade Mexico in order to stop the migrant flow. It can refuse to allow them in.

Under Clinton/ Bush/ Obama, the USA became a corporatist entity, meaning that government, big business and corporate media became one and the same thing, with each branch serving the others, to the expense of the people.
You've got the Democrat Party who want to import a Hispanic voter base and to destroy "whiteness". They are even now giving campaign speeches in Spanish........
Corporations who want to import people to keep wages down.
Government troughers want to import people to keep the population divided and themselves in power and free money.
Wealthy people who want cheap gardeners and maids.

If the US government stops importing these millions of illegals, it will force those people to stay put and solve their own problems through hard work, democracy or the point of a gun.
That's if they are able to. Bear in mind that not all peoples are capable of creating advanced societies.
Whitey has a tendency to believe that everyone in the world is both capable of creating a Western-style society, but also wants it.

Western Civilisation was invented by Europeans and is suited to places in which Europeans live in number, as well as to some degree in East Asia.
Other places inhabited by other peoples are suited to different systems, but this does not mean that the West has any obligation to import people who want an easy route to a comfortable life.

 

[vanillaface]

The US has a responsibility to Mexico and the rest of Central and South America.

It is the cause of one of the biggest issues in many countries, the cartels. The West, and largely the US create the demand that creates the social problems.

Also, as one of the world's biggest polluters, and with a moron in charge trying to make it worse, they have a massive responsibility to support those displaced or impacted economically by what needs to be done to save the human way of life as it stands.

The US government has a responsibility to the American people. It does not have a responsibility to Mexicans.

The American people have a moral responsibility to not cause carnage in Mexico by buying drugs which flow through it, just as the Mexican cartels have a moral (and legal) responsibility to not cause carnage in their own country by providing drugs.

Trump's far from a moron. By electing him, the American people have given themselves a lifeline; a stay of execution if you will.
Now, the globalists have to go through Trump to get to them. He is their shield. Why do you think that the corporatist apparatus is so against him? Why do you think that they have to invent stories of Russian collusion to try and illegally get rid of him?
Trump may be an oaf, but he's the best thing to happen to the American people for decades.

 

[wesimmo]

Which is it? They do or do not have a responsibility? You can't separate the US into government and citizens in the issue of drugs, the whole eco system is a combination of the people and the law enforcement agencies. And anyway, if the people have a responsibility, then the government do by default, as they are supposed to act for the people.

What exactly has Trump given the electorate a stay of execution from?

And, for the record, Trump colluding with Russia is a matter of fact and not opinion.

 

[vanillaface]

Which is it? They do or do not have a responsibility? You can't separate the US into government and citizens in the issue of drugs, the whole eco system is a combination of the people and the law enforcement agencies. And anyway, if the people have a responsibility, then the government do by default, as they are supposed to act for the people.

The US government has a responsibility to serve the interests of the people of the USA.
The Mexican government has a responsibility to serve the interests of the people of Mexico.
The British government has a responsibility to serve the interests of the people of Britain.
And so on.

The American people have a duty to obey the laws of the USA, especially if the laws reflects crimes.
They have a moral duty to not fund the drug trade, which causes misery for innocent people in other countries as well as their own. There is no such thing as a right to take drugs; it is a privilege. The cost of buying that gram of coke is not just the money handed over - each gram consumed contributes to mass murder and rape.

What exactly has Trump given the electorate a stay of execution from?

From globalist policies of course. Trump is a nationalist.

And, for the record, Trump colluding with Russia is a matter of fact and not opinion.

No, it is not a matter of fact. It was an invention intended to destroy his presidency. The investigation found no collusion.
What was discovered though was that the US government colluded with the British and Australian governments to create this phony Russia collusion story in the first place.
Globalists over the world colluded to firstly prevent a nationalist being elected as president of the USA, and then his removal from office.

I'm so glad that he is US president. With a globalist USA, the entire world will sink into slavery.

 

[GGizmo]

Well, the US doesn't have to invade Mexico in order to stop the migrant flow. It can refuse to allow them in.

Under Clinton/ Bush/ Obama, the USA became a corporatist entity, meaning that government, big business and corporate media became one and the same thing, with each branch serving the others, to the expense of the people.
You've got the Democrat Party who want to import a Hispanic voter base and to destroy "whiteness". They are even now giving campaign speeches in Spanish........
Corporations who want to import people to keep wages down.
Government troughers want to import people to keep the population divided and themselves in power and free money.
Wealthy people who want cheap gardeners and maids.

You make some good points.

I think the problem in "democratic" countries is that it doesn't work if all the population arent focused on the same thing. Instead it becomes a tribal battle played out on the political field.

It is sad that the democratic party seem to always take an assumptive racist position that all minority groups will vote for them. It is sad that the mainly conservative minorities get scooped up by the democrats when many of them would be natural conservatives, like Mexicans are mostly catholics.

I still say though that stopping immigration completely won't stop people coming to the border, and just how far is America supposed to go? Shooting people to keep them back? I think the Mexican government is on the verge of becoming a rogue country and their non-action in cutting corruption is allowing it to approach bandit state status.

I still say something more must be done, though as you say there are a lot of forces that want to keep the status quo, while the governments US/Mexico pay lip service to the problem.

 

[StriderX]

I think the Mexican government is on the verge of becoming a rogue country and their non-action in cutting corruption is allowing it to approach bandit state status.

The US literally has the most corrupt government (respective of previous admin.) perhaps ever, i don't think they can pass judgement like this again without looking like fools, constant obstruction of congress, constant maneuvers to pilfer money from other parts of the government to waste it on a generally worthless vanity project, constantly gerrymandering and applying restrictive voting laws statewide when it suits them usually to the distinct detriment of minorities (funny that and you wonder why they dont vote that way), running away from scrutiny at every juncture. Mexico might always have been a pretty roguish entity, but this is a hill that's now shared between them.

This doesn't excuse the democrats whenever they've partaken in idiocy, but generally it seems mostly one-sided.

 

[vanillaface]

I think the problem in "democratic" countries is that it doesn't work if all the population arent focused on the same thing. Instead it becomes a tribal battle played out on the political field.

Democracy is, when you boil it down, one group of politicians trying to out-promise another group of politicians.
So you have one group saying, "vote for us and we'll give you free money" and another group saying the same.
They know perfectly well that people are entirely willing to be bribed.
Just look at the EU vote. A huge swathe of the country were worried that they might not get to live quite as comfortable a life if we left the EU. It did not matter to them that staying in the EU would imperil the lives of their children. All that mattered to them was comfort.
In general elections, almost everyone votes for parties which are going to harm them. Why? For money.
A high quality electorate is needed, and that is something we do not have.
Direct democracy is better, but still falls short of what is needed.

If you import people from abroad in large number, then democracy is further subverted. Just look at what happened in Peterborough, or in other places in which everyone had to take their postal vote to the local mosque, where the imam could make sure that the ballots were filled out correctly.

It is sad that the democratic party seem to always take an assumptive racist position that all minority groups will vote for them. It is sad that the mainly conservative minorities get scooped up by the democrats when many of them would be natural conservatives, like Mexicans are mostly catholics.

People are generally socially conservative, but offer them free money and they'll vote Labour or Democrat Party.

I still say though that stopping immigration completely won't stop people coming to the border, and just how far is America supposed to go? Shooting people to keep them back? I think the Mexican government is on the verge of becoming a rogue country and their non-action in cutting corruption is allowing it to approach bandit state status.

It's not about stopping immigration completely - it's about stopping ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or mass immigration. If potential illegal immigrants can see that those before them are not getting in, then they will not make the journey in the first place.

The EU has been getting its mass illegal immigration because the EU wants the migrants. The chap who laid the groundwork for the creation of the EU said that the indigenous peoples of Europe must be destroyed and replaced by what he called "Eurasian-negroids", for the EU to work long term.

I still say something more must be done, though as you say there are a lot of forces that want to keep the status quo, while the governments US/Mexico pay lip service to the problem.

The best thing for the Americans to do, is get off their arses and solve the problem themselves. The people who have self-funded the building of sections of the border wall have done a better job than the government have done, and way cheaper.
To rely on the government to do things, is to build on sand.

 

[StriderX]

So the US should disband it's military then, disband the federal government entirely and only be sort of functioning individual states?

To rely on the government to do things, is to build on sand.

I mean why doesnt Texas just bus the immigrants to Montana in that instance? Surely that's better for Texans?

I await the justification with immense boredom. Ohh and thanks for being somewhat potentially racist, if you wanted to you know... not be, you'd have found a direct quotation and cited it. Also if we're talking about people who lay the groundwork for things, should we go back to the founding fathers and see their opinions on the matter of immigration?

Because the truth is they pretty much universally hated anything non-Anglo Saxon, fearing the likes of Germanification, which while they came in great numbers and contribute now a significant proportion of the identity of the country, the bigoted fears never came true, so why continue this farcical line of reasoning when it clearly doesn't pan out.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

I picked up the Evening Standard this evening and was confronted by a pretty depressing picture. The headline is, "The picture that shames America". Anyway, here is the online version:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...less-fathers-body-shows-toll-of-a4175971.html

First off, I can't stand Donald Fart at all, but am I unreasonable in saying that it's a bit of a stretch trying to lay the (thinly veiled) blame on him and his policies?

Take stupid risks, especially with children, and it's likely to end in tears. I'm a bit perplexed at how this is anyone's fault but the father's?

Maybe I'm a bit old but I've always believed in taking responsibility for my actions rather than blame-shifting, even if it could have got me the sack in the past.

Please can someone tell me what am I missing?

What I don't get is why not just let them in? Surely more people at the bottom means more money for the people at the top? It will also help those currently at the bottom who want to better themselves get nearer to the middle.

Having a bigger population is good for the economy. Especially younger people who would be coming over and working.

 

[vanillaface]

So the US should disband it's military then, disband the federal government entirely and only be sort of functioning individual states?

No, they should not disband the military. There isn't a civilian alternative.

And then it descended into

racist

bigoted

You missed out quite a few though. Off the top of my head, I can think of "sexist", "misogynist", "transphobic", to name just a few.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

And, for the record, Trump colluding with Russia is a matter of fact and not opinion.

The only opinion in this statement is yours, the fact is it was investigated and no charges were pursued as there wasnt evidence to support your claim.

 

[cheesyboy]

The only opinion in this statement is yours, the fact is it was investigated and no charges were pursued as there wasnt evidence to support your claim.

This is incorrect. "charges" aren't an option, and congress not moving is tactical, not legal.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

This is incorrect. "charges" aren't an option, and congress not moving is tactical, not legal.

Oh, sure it is

 

[cheesyboy]

Oh, sure it is

In very simple terms, McConnell will block a trial in the Senate, which is the step after impeachment, so the whole thing becomes a political exercise, rather than a legal one. And Democrats calculate that it will harm them more than the Republicans, with elections only 18 months away.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I saw this article and kind of thought the same.

Obviously sad situation, but how can you blame this all on Trump / the american govt for upholding it's immigration laws? You can apply legally like everyone else has to? are people actually that stupid now? we need to open all of our borders to everyone because reasons?

South America yes it's not exactly a great place but it's far from say somewhere like war torn Somalia.....