No one can really say yet. Goes without saying that the EU is going to try and strong-arm the UK because they feel insulted, but at the same time the UK was one of their wealthiest countries (I think that's the right word. idk) so this will probably have an effect on the countries that were depending on the EU to stay afloat (namely Greece and places that replaced their currency with the euro). The US might be a little less than considerate too considering Obama was poking his nose into their business earlier.
Of course markets are going down because the global markets are ALWAYS reactionary to every little thing. You'll notice that the sterling was going up when the "stay" voters were in the lead of polls and very suddenly dropped when they realized "Oh shit leave actually won". It'll even back out in time. Really that goes with everything about this. It's all going to even out in time.
As for Scotland, they were already trying to get out of being with the UK and barely made the stay vote so of course they're going to look for another reason to leave.
Also it's disgusting how they were trying every trick in the book to try and "morally force" people into voting stay, going so far as to call all (or nearly all) "leave" voters racist. smh.
What I'm curious about is if they're actually going to go through with it. I know their head official guy (name always escapes me) promised that he would go with the majority and that this vote was going to be a one time only deal, but who knows if he'll live up to his word.
In the end, all I can tell the stay voters is this. If you want to stay in the EU that much, then pack up and move to another part while you can.
Very well said. Not that I like losing 5% on my investments in 24 hours, especially with a child starting college in 2 months, but as will most things in life, it will all even out in the end. Can't bail when things are down, because you miss the bargains on the way back up.
I wonder who else will bail on the EU. On the one hand, this give another nation like Germany and France an opportunity for more influence and power within the EU. On the other hand, this also gives them an excuse to get out and stop propping up crappy economies like Greece and others.
It has been interesting to see a little rise in nationalism, as some of the vote was no doubt cast because of immigration and free-travel/work policies. I wonder if that will grow, or if it's just a reaction to ISIS attacks and (hopefully) temporary migrations of large blocks of people. Never settles well with me when the combination of a more powerful Germany coincides with a rise in nationalism. I'm sure I'm just being alarmist (thought I have dozens of cousins in Germany). It will be very interesting to see how this settles out, and how the new U.S. administration handles it.
If the reports/articles I've read are actually to be believed, then Canada, the US, and Germany in fact are all trying to get special trade deals with the UK. Also the Bank of England has already come out and said that there are contingency plans in effect so that there won't be any short term repercussions on finances.
The EU's apparently been trying to get Britain out very quickly because a lot of anti-EU sentiments have been cropping up in other EU countries. It's definitely going to have a ripple effect, though if anything actually comes from it or not will just have to be seen.
I have conflicting thoughts on nationalism. On the one hand, I don't like patriotism and such sentiments. On the other hand, I think that a country should be able to do what they please with their own borders. That and I'd take nationalism over globalism any day.
That and I'd take nationalism over globalism any day.
Why? I keep hearing people bashing globalism but I don't get why it's supposed to be so bad. It seems to me that a lot of problems would be solved or reduced if we thought of each other as citizens of earth rather than placing so much importance on what corner of the world we were born in. I'm not saying remove all borders and sing kumbaya either.
The problem is DB that you cant have a single governing body calling all the shots. Suppose for example the One World Government decided to go with Sharia law.
You need that DIVERSITY (that's the word you all love right?) to keep things comfortable. Funny how all the people who claim to care about diversity don't actually care, and then the people who claim to care the least, actually care the most...
The problem is DB that you cant have a single governing body calling all the shots. Suppose for example the One World Government decided to go with Sharia law.
You need that DIVERSITY (that's the word you all love right?) to keep things comfortable. Funny how all the people who claim to care about diversity don't actually care, and then the people who claim to care the least, actually care the most...
No need to get so harsh, man. lol
As for DB, on the one hand I want people to simply get along with other people. That being said, there are some cultures that simply don't mix together (example: Islam vs The West) and getting them to get along is something that I don't think will ever be able to happen.
The thought that people in power will attempt to abuse their power.
A single main governing body that gets too large will start to fall apart much more than likely from having too much to govern at once.
When one country falls into decline, it's up to the other to help it up which can cause people to be upset and even then doesn't necessarily mean it'll even help (see: Greece)
Finally, and my personal opinion, it leads to a lot of homogenisation. The thought that mixing all these different colors (culture, not skin) will simply produce nothing but grey instead of any of the more vivid colors that went in. While trying to write my own thoughts on this, I came across this which i think states it pretty well.
( Click to show/hide )
Cultural homogenization is the homegenisation of different cultural practices into one blended, uniform cultural practices that do not allow easy identification of the characteristics of many cultures. It means over the years, peoples of two or more cultures have interacted and intermingles in such a manner as to lose their individual cultural identities and merged into a one uniform culture than does not show any trace of diversity of different cultures among the people.
Coca-Cola's famous 1970s ad that had children representing cultures from around the world singing together (and, of course, drinking Coke) symbolizes the tendency of globalization to discount or caricature cultural difference while reducing individuals to the status of potential consumers. But despite its attempts to set global harmony to song, the move towards cultural homogenization that is implicit in the ad and in globalization has significant consequences. Cultural homogenization substitutes a kind of decontextualized consumerism for a more grounded and authentic sense of identity. Dahl describes the impact of cultural homogenization as a "mirror effect" in which the behavior of media role models is "mirrored, digested and internalized" thus: "The norms and values, the morals of the culture industry they represent are taken over. If they drink Coke, their followers do" (1998, . Furthermore, cultural homogenization reduces existing cultures to superficial parodies of themselves and in suggesting that these pale imitations are the essences of local cultures, it minimizes significant differences that can and do exist between cultural groups. Ultimately, cultural homogenization is a form of cultural repression rather than an open expression of cultural difference.
Particularly in television advertisements, cultural homogenization has become so pervasive that many students have ceased to remark on its underlying message of consumerism and cultural conformity. As a way of revealing and analyzing the subtext of cultural homogenization, students should be encouraged to "talk back" to television ads through the creation of "anti-ads." The structure of such a project might have the following form:
Talking Back to Your Television: Creating an "Anti-Ad"
We have all seen television ads that use exotic images of different nations and cultures to endorse particular products. Despite the visible differences between these other cultures and our own, the ads tend to promote the underlying message that we are all basically part of the same global culture and that we all believe in the same values. But is this true? Critics of these ads point to the idea that they promote global consumerism and cultural homogenization. Cultural homogenization threatens to diminish or to eliminate local cultures by creating a global culture based mainly on consumerism. In the following exercise, you will be looking at the idea of cultural homogenization as you create your own "anti-ad."
That being said, there are some cultures that simply don't mix together (example: Islam vs The West)
I get what you mean and I agree but Islam isn't a culture.
Quote:
getting them to get along is something that I don't think will ever be able to happen.
But you don't think it's absolutely impossible, right? Islam in it's current state is incompatible with pretty much every other belief system but what if it goes through a reformation or something happens to make the faithful lose faith in it?
Quote:
The thought that people in power will attempt to abuse their power.
That will happen no matter what.
Quote:
A single main governing body that gets too large will start to fall apart much more than likely from having too much to govern at once.
How many times has it been tried? 2-3 times I think and each time it wasn't really an honest attempt at a world government(that includes the UN). We shouldn't just give up on the idea so quickly. Do you really think a world full of individual states is sustainable given how connected we're all becoming? The world is not what it used to be and we can't go back.
Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say in the very near future we get confirmation that aliens are out there and close enough for contact. Do you, or anyone reading this, think we'd be better off divided or united? The aliens don't even have to be hostile in this scenario, it could just be a matter of our world descending into chaos and confusion at the discovery.
"My mind is my weapon. My brother has his sword, King Robert has his warhammer and I have my mind... and a mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone if it is to keep its edge. That’s why I read so much, Jon Snow."
If 10 years ago you told me I'd be kickin back listening to Vanilla Ice browsing RU, and Donald Trump was just elected president in 2016, Ida laughed....
EDIT: but seriously I wasnt even listening to vanila ice though... like never even realy listend to that shit or whatever...
EDIT 2: And NO, Kriss Kross "Jump" did NOT come on next, and I did NOT shoulder dance to it. Assholes.
Last edited by Slime Slayer; 11-09-2016 at 03:12 AM..
Our provincial government is getting a coalition government. It seems stupid to me. No 1 party can win the majority so the one that does have the highest percentage (liberal) gets kicked out because the ndp form their like 43% with the greens 8%. The 2 forming don't see eye to eye so i don't get it. It's going to be a mess.
The best we can hope for is a speedy impeachment. We're most likely stuck with him for four years though so we have to cross our fingers and hope he doesn't do too much damage.
Like it or not, he's the president. He's the final word on what is classified and what isn't. What classified information gets shared to whom.
I didn't vote for or want Trump but thus far I feel he's done just as decent of a job as Obama. He's done some things I agree with and some I don't. Same old story for every president. If this maintains to 2020, would consider him being the first Republican presidential candidate I've ever voted for.
He's the final word on what is classified and what isn't. What classified information gets shared to whom.
Yeah but usually these things go through the proper channels and other people agree on what should or shouldn't be classified. Deciding to declassify something mid meeting with Russia is not normal procedure and it's borderline treasonous. The president should not be loose with our secrets, surely we can all agree on that.
Quote:
If this maintains to 2020, would consider him being the first Republican presidential candidate I've ever voted for.
You don't mind how dishonest he is? He's been lying constantly and he never takes responsibility for it, he deflects and makes excuses. That alone is enough for me to never vote for him. They all lie of course but not like him.
Treason doesn't work that way. Broad definitions used in a dictionary are moot. To accuse someone of political treason would require the legal definition defined in the Constitution:
"Article 3 Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained." https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html
Russia is not considered an "enemy of the state" as Congress has not declared war against them. Unbeknownst to the Bushs, Clintons, and Obamas of the world, onlt Congress has the right to declare war.
Declassifying or sharing of classified information must (not usually) go through the proper channels. That being said, the President, acting as the Commander-in-Chief is the final word on classified information and is the end all "proper channel." This is a privilege of the executive branch.
"The United States over the past decades under the Obama and Clinton administrations has released classified information to foreign governments for diplomatic goodwill, known as declassification diplomacy. Examples include information on Augusto Pinochet to the government of Chile. In October 2015, US Secretary of State John Kerry provided Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s president, a pen drive containing hundreds of newly declassified documents." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classi..._United_States
This is all VERY common it seems. I suspect this is mostly being drummed up by the media as political scandal, real or made up, sells.
As for his dishonesty, I only mind it as much as I mind the dishonesty of any other politician. He's done idiotic things such as the bombing of Libya which world policing has been a horrible trait of all our president in my lifetime. He's also done wonderful things in my opinion, like the executive order that allows vets to seek medical attention in any public hospital and not just VAs. Stopping government funding of Planned Parenthood was also a great service in my opinion.
His budget gets a C+. I'd like to see military spending take a large cut as well.
That's why I said borderline. I think this falls under "giving aid" to an enemy. Obviously no declaration of war has been made but come on we know Russia is not an ally or even on friendly terms with us. Trump acting like they are because he has business dealings is not the same thing.
Quote:
Russia is not considered an "enemy of the state" as Congress has not declared war against them.
It's not official but it's been implied for decades. Before Trump the republicans talked about Russia like it was a boogeyman, now they're suddenly potential allies we should be nice to. The 180 is pathetic.
Quote:
Declassifying or sharing of classified information must (not usually) go through the proper channels. That being said, the President, acting as the Commander-in-Chief is the final word on classified information and is the end all "proper channel." This is a privilege of the executive branch.
It may be legal but it hurts his credibility and adds fuel to the impeachment idea.
Quote:
"The United States over the past decades under the Obama and Clinton administrations has released classified information to foreign governments for diplomatic goodwill, known as declassification diplomacy. Examples include information on Augusto Pinochet to the government of Chile. In October 2015, US Secretary of State John Kerry provided Michelle Bachelet, Chile’s president, a pen drive containing hundreds of newly declassified documents."
And that was wrong too.
Quote:
This is all VERY common it seems. I suspect this is mostly being drummed up by the media as political scandal, real or made up, sells.
It wouldn't be such a big story if Trump was normal. On top of all the other shit he's done it looks much worse.
Quote:
I'd like to see military spending take a large cut as well.
That's never gonna happen. He'd rather cut billions from healthcare and education to make up for his spending increase.
Either something is legal or it isn't. There's no "almost legal" or "close to being illegal." It's very black and white.
Quote:
I think this falls under "giving aid" to an enemy.
It doesn't.
Quote:
adds fuel to the impeachment idea
A Republican president being impeached by a republican controlled House and Senate? I doubt Donald Trump will join the ranks of Bill Clinton and Andrew Jackson, unless he wins 2020 and Congress changes.
Also of note. In 2018 there are 33 Senate seats up for election. 23 of the 33 seats up for election are held by the Democratic Party (and two by the Independent Party, Vermont and Maine respectively, which tend to lean left). This means the Democrats have much more to lose than gain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...lections,_2018
Quote:
He'd rather cut billions from healthcare and education
If only we could cut it from both. Funny enough, the last two presidents that never increased the military budget were Richard Nixon and George H. W. Bush. https://thinkprogress.org/chart-past...t-85d575ff43db
It's too bad Bush's son was one of the worst presidents of our time...
---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevencassidy13
Question: why would being allies with a world super power like Russia be a bad thing?
Americans our age an older are naturally abhorrent to the idea of siding with Russia. This is almost exclusively due to the prevalence of Cold War propaganda that the government pushed on it's citizenry for decades. Unlike what Dudebro insinuated, the propaganda what prevalent from both sides of the aisle, though admittedly, the worst offender, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a Republican.
Wat?? Then why does google show so many results? "Barely legal" is literally one of the most popular search terms on the internet.
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevencassidy13
Question: why would being allies with a world super power like Russia be a bad thing?
Why would it be a good thing if a world super power like Russia manipulated the election of another world super power?
Let's say one of your friends is into your wife so he starts spreading a bunch of bad gossip about you. Some of it is true, some is made up, none of it is good. His goal is to get your wife to leave you, and she does. Is that dude still your friend?
-----
A president declassifying on the fly is never a crime but hopefully it is a calculated strategy.
He was bragging that as president he has access to top secret intel as if the Russians were unaware that being president is pretty cool. That is not a strategy. Can you call it anything other than a careless mistake caused by Alzheimer's, narcissism, or a general misunderstanding of his responsibilities?
It's an indication that he is unfit for the job. Not important by itself but if it part of a larger pattern then our canneries are dying and we should find out why.
-----
What evidence would convince you the election was rigged?
If you were convinced that the election was rigged then what do you think we should do about it?
Do you believe Hillary and/or the Democrats rigged the primaries against Bernie?
Is the evidence you need to believe Hillary/Democrats rigged primaries less/greater than the evidence you need to believe Trump/Russia rigged the election?
My answers:
( Click to show/hide )
I think the democrats rigged the primaries and Hillary was at least partially aware that her team was cheating (she knowingly received debate questions early). I think the early debate question access by itself is grounds for resignation and investigation but not enough for impeachment (if she had won).
I think the election was rigged for Trump but by who and to what degree still needs to be answered. Trump's team should have no influence on the investigation but they keep stepping in which is highly suspect.
If it was rigged by Trump or anyone on Trump's team then he and his entire cabinet should resign and/or be prosecuted/impeached. That includes Mike Pence. It would be treason.
If it was rigged by Russians then that is an act of war and a physical war should be declared. I am very anti-war but why have the largest military the world has ever seen if you wont scare the crap out of any country that dares to screw with our elections. If true, this was way worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined.
America has interfered in numerous elections around the globe so any action we take will be hypocritical and should include ample apologies of our own.
It is difficult for a president to be impeached. Nixon and Clinton were tied up in Obstruction of Justice (using their power to interfere with an investigation) and perjury (lying under oath). That is about the only way for a president to go down.
( Click to show/hide )
Clinton was being sued for sexual harassment (not an impeachable offense) but while doing so swore under oath that he "did not have sexual relations with Monica". But she saved a dress with his semen on it so he had to change his story to "I only had oral sex with her" which was dangerously close to perjury.
It isn't difficult to imagine Trump interfering with an investigation or lying under oath. But it also requires willful intent and an understanding of the law and he has already set up a great defense of not knowing politics, law or the difference between facts and lies.
"Let's say one of your friends is into your wife so he starts spreading a bunch of bad gossip about you. Some of it is true, some is made up, none of it is good. His goal is to get your wife to leave you, and she does. Is that dude still your friend?"
No...? Im confused... is Trump my wife? Lol Sorry I don't follow.
Regarding rigged elections, Hillary and crew did rig the elections against Bernie, this is proven.
Trump rigging the election with the Russians is 100% speculation and essentially baseless, the narrative is being pushed because it gets viewers/clicks. In fact the onslaught of anti-Trump news that cannot be escaped is all clickbait. They do not care about the specifics of the content. Hell CNN ran a story about how pathetic it was that Trump ate his KFC a knife and fork -I'm not kidding.
The fact that the media is doing this is makes it very difficult for an individual to gauge exactly how good or bad Trump is performing. I'd love to be able to offer an opinion on the guy, but unfortunately, I can't see through the wall of people attacking him.
. Furthermore, cultural homogenization reduces existing cultures to superficial parodies of themselves and in suggesting that these pale imitations are the essences of local cultures, it minimizes significant differences that can and do exist between cultural groups. Ultimately, cultural homogenization is a form of cultural repression rather than an open expression of cultural difference. 
Linear Mode
