Is America great now?

[Lark]

Yes, the landscape is changing, which is also one of the reasons why we here are collectively losing interest in many western "beliefs". Publicly westernization simply lost it's charm with everything that it going on. Especially since with the rise of China consumerism is no longer particularly western trait. Actually when Russian state banks took over the spine of our economy few years ago the public was literally *crickets* about this. Since they knew that this spine has to be saved and by big player from outside, since this "spine" makes 20% of GDP every year. Plus they were generally frustrated with how the government and market were getting reorganized/deregulated. However that public silence on this issue was totally deafening if you knew what you are actually watching. But that was the turning point from which our local history went into unexpected direction. Even if the whole thing started as corporate crime that turned into something much bigger. While the spine seems to be doing better from year to year and the people/consumers accepted it in it's current form. What is the ending that has two big stories in it "The state had a success where the private ownership failed" and " Russia saved us from financial meltdown". What is blooper that the west shouldn't have allowed for it's own sake. It is kinda corny to say it but I actually often do wonder what Hillary would have done due to NATO and all that Jazz.



In other words changes in the west/first world have very direct impact on it's position and influence in the world.

I think a lot of the thinking has, thankfully, moved on and changed from the era of the cold war, with its win/lose, winner takes all, loser is annihilated thinking.

At least I hope it has, the whole idea of super power conflict in which one is abject evil and the other paradise seems to have vanished, which I think is great, the strange Russian faux democracy, cartels and red-brown alliance has less to recommend it than the west but I think China will become more significant than Russia, they definitely seem to be the rival that Trump wants to focus upon. I dont think that's simply because he and Boris are in hock to the Russians.

The future of super power conflict could maybe see the anglosphere and "west" be less relevant to alternative trading or national blocs doing their own thing.

Much more honesty and truth will make a change to a lot of things, on the one hand, which some racists in the west may like, there could be a break or at least a slow down in all the population flight from elsewhere with states imploding left and right, also, I think, increasingly, the west is bound to eventually become a much less enticing prospect to people if they take an objective measure of these countries which cant defend their native populations from bad weather and disease.

 

[anticlimatic]

Well in my book your fundamental problem is that you have simplistic approach to the idea of social structure. Since not every structure is fundamentally oppressive and dysfunctional. As I said my government saved my life a number of times and it also helped me a number of times. Since it's structure is set in that way. However people should pay attention that the government remains democratic under the foreign influence(s). Not to mention that this influence from abroad can be spread among people even if we don't have a government, in a way that only makes it easier.




Regarding functions:
You can talk about this as much as you want but the fact is that people are running huge corporations and governments through this combination and they aren't failing at everything. There are glitches or even deliberate evil but the fact is that they are pushing through their ideas that are coming to life. While they often even remain standing for a long time, otherwise the world would look pretty differently. But in the end that sorting out is a skill that requires both training and plenty of general competency.

Huge corporations and governments are run more through Si/Te than Ni/Te. I'm not very congruent with that style of thinking either, but at least it's built on more sturdy ground (empirical sensing/history) than the crazy ideas Ni/Te comes up with. Which isn't to say I dislike XNTJ types- I do- they are usually very moral and loyal individuals. Their ambitions and predictions make me shake my head, though. I feel like they can see maybe one step ahead somewhat accurately, but they never stop there, and anything beyond that is usually quite incorrect. I also don't know any INTJs who are able to achieve any more than 20% of their ambitions- and not because they lack the will- but because reality typically intervenes with their plans and renders them moot, time and time again. Anyway, not sure how we got on this tangent...

How did your government save your life? Is that why you're loyal to socialist ideals? I might have a simple approach to social structure in some degrees, but not others. Simplicity- like freedom- is another paradox, wherein you must pick and choose between which things you want to make complicated so that other things can be simple, and vice verse. When it comes to systems- social structures as an example- I prefer them centered in simple principals, so that the complications that grow from there can have a common inner language to negotiate with. The less moving parts a machine has, the better and longer it will function. In the case of social structures, I judge things based on those core principals- not on the ad hoc patch job context for which they are often, with the best intentions, generated or applied. What you call simple, I call reliable/sturdy.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think a lot of the thinking has, thankfully, moved on and changed from the era of the cold war, with its win/lose, winner takes all, loser is annihilated thinking.

At least I hope it has, the whole idea of super power conflict in which one is abject evil and the other paradise seems to have vanished, which I think is great, the strange Russian faux democracy, cartels and red-brown alliance has less to recommend it than the west but I think China will become more significant than Russia, they definitely seem to be the rival that Trump wants to focus upon. I dont think that's simply because he and Boris are in hock to the Russians.

The future of super power conflict could maybe see the anglosphere and "west" be less relevant to alternative trading or national blocs doing their own thing.

Much more honesty and truth will make a change to a lot of things, on the one hand, which some racists in the west may like, there could be a break or at least a slow down in all the population flight from elsewhere with states imploding left and right, also, I think, increasingly, the west is bound to eventually become a much less enticing prospect to people if they take an objective measure of these countries which cant defend their native populations from bad weather and disease.

The disease part is true, I would say many rich countries suffered a powerful blow to their image since they were not able to or even willing to control this pandemic. While some objectively poorer did manage it much better. Although I would dare to say that this is possibly one of the key parts of success. For example here we (the people) as well as our government knew that we don't have the capacity for some large and long out of control pandemic. As well as that we don't have too much money to spare either (Or that we will have much less of if we lose touristic desirability). Therefore since we have a collective memory of going through our dark history once again clear majority quickly realized that this is another "be or not to be" situation.



Well the world is evidently turning into a multi polar mess where those poles are basically having a game of thrones between them.


1. Anglo-sphere
2. EU
3. Russia with satellites
4. China
5. India
6. Gulf states
7. Brazil
8. Japan and pacific allies


These are all pieces that are dancing among each other even if they are not in equal strength. Even if they are trying to bend as much of their environment to their will. However the summed amount of power is simply too big that anyone can have clear domination that is unquestionable (at least at this point).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Huge corporations and governments are run more through Si/Te than Ni/Te. I'm not very congruent with that style of thinking either, but at least it's built on more sturdy ground (empirical sensing/history) than the crazy ideas Ni/Te comes up with. Which isn't to say I dislike XNTJ types- I do- they are usually very moral and loyal individuals. Their ambitions and predictions make me shake my head, though. I feel like they can see maybe one step ahead somewhat accurately, but they never stop there, and anything beyond that is usually quite incorrect. I also don't know any INTJs who are able to achieve any more than 20% of their ambitions- and not because they lack the will- but because reality typically intervenes with their plans and renders them moot, time and time again. Anyway, not sure how we got on this tangent...

How did your government save your life? Is that why you're loyal to socialist ideals? I might have a simple approach to social structure in some degrees, but not others. Simplicity- like freedom- is another paradox, wherein you must pick and choose between which things you want to make complicated so that other things can be simple, and vice verse. When it comes to systems- social structures as an example- I prefer them centered in simple principals, so that the complications that grow from there can have a common inner language to negotiate with. The less moving parts a machine has, the better and longer it will function. In the case of social structures, I judge things based on those core principals- not on the ad hoc patch job context for which they are often, with the best intentions, generated or applied. What you call simple, I call reliable/sturdy.

In my book this is wrong since Te is fundamentally empirical function. While Ni-Fe is more of a bad practical judgement regarding visions, since usually underdeveloped Ti can't balanced it out. Although it all comes down to personal health and competency in the end. We got here since you started talking how you don't believe in Ni-Te vision.




Well, I am simply "loyal" to the law of the land since everyone around me is more or less like this, I guess you can call this "culture". However here law of the land simply isn't too openly capitalistic in western sense of the term. History was simply too turbulent that serious fiscal conservatism would make sense.


How the government saved my life ? Despite the odds it stopped Nazi Germany style invasion into the country. While it also cured all of my childhood diseases during the war for free, what is big since there wasn't even stable/established currency at the time. Basically the same goes for my entire family and all friends. Plus it put out a few fires that were a potential threat. But also mentioned helps weren't too small either and perhaps they saved me here as well a few times: I don't think I ever paid a medical bill larger than 150$ and I did even stuff like surgeries with anesthesia. I also got to do a number of tests through the decades that I wanted, all for free in direct payments and I never had to do serious paper work regarding that. I never had some kind of a health plan, actually most of the stuff were a zero in direct out of pocket money. Also I got master degree free of charge, what made many things much more simple. In the current pandemic we lost only about 120 people thus far and that was due to the government's focused actions. What is again potential life saver (of me or family). Also there weren't mass lay offs thus far related to the pandemic, due to the smart public policy. It keeps food generally clear of dangerous chemicals and GM is forbidden ..... etc. Therefore I can't really say that the government is the worst problem in my life or that is useless. However I also said a number of times that for me your government isn't really a government, since for me it lacks some of key features to be defined as one. For me your government is just a conglomerate of various interest groups and activists ... and that is it. There is simply nothing really attractive or helpful in the whole mix.

 

[anticlimatic]

For me your government is just a conglomerate of various interest groups and activists ... and that is it. There is simply nothing really attractive or helpful in the whole mix.

On this we can agree at least.

Though in my opinion none of things your government did for you should be the job of the government at all, and I'd prefer that our conglomerate of various interest groups just be dissolved and gotten out of the way so people can better prosper to pay their own way and make their own decisions.

 

[Virtual ghost]

On this we can agree at least.

Though in my opinion none of things your government did for you should be the job of the government at all, and I'd prefer that our conglomerate of various interest groups just be dissolved and gotten out of the way so people can better prosper to pay their own way and make their own decisions.

In my book your fundamental problem here is that you don't get the difference between Socialism and Social-democracy. Just by saying that I am loyal to socialist stuff points out that you don't get things. Here we had a war to get rid of socialism and have social-democracy instead, since the difference is huge. One is a democracy and the other is a dictatorship. One spends it's huge power to help everyone and the other just the ruling oligarchy for the most part. One recognizes private ownership and business while the other doesn't. Social democracy actually tends to benefit people even more than the so called free market. Therefore in most areas it is not anything like socialist dictatorship, however your local elites have deliberately merged this two terms in order that they can give less to the people and create/maintain lower expectations. Not to mention that many social-democracies on this continent have condemned events in Venezuela as well (they even stood against USSR back in a day). This is because Social-democracy is tight pact between the citizens that is established through the government of the people, not a dictatorship. True, in my country we still have various loyalists of various ex systems but they aren't the majority in this country (despite being pretty vocal). We wanted independence exactly in order to crash socialism and establish social-democracy. However currently our biggest problem is that this governing model is being undone everywhere and we have to side either with our western allies that are getting increasingly corporate, neoliberal and pseudo democratic or openly totalitarian east that offers various economic deals and benefits at the cost of democracy. What in the end is "pick your poison" situation. Thus far the general desires are towards first world since there is greater potential for repairing the system but the east is getting increasingly assertive. However your words would surely tilt many people here towards the east.




In other words your logic is very short sighted on a global map and relies on geographic isolation that in 21th century just isn't there. I will dare to use star trek analogy for my words. Borg attacks the Federation and your counter logic is that fundamentally it is every ship for itself in this mess. If possible they should be so small that they can't even have a warp drive in order to jump from for system to system or build more advanced ships. Therefore it is just a matter of time before Borg catches everyone, since you basically served yourself on a plate. In other words libertarian ideas are the greatest beneficiaries of totalitarian systems, since they are scattering the building blocks that otherwise might have a shot in resisting. I really hope that you saying that "fighting enemy invasions isn't the job of the government" is just a posting oversight on your part. Since that is what I named as the fist benefit of my government. Plus on that list of benefits I forgot one very important thing that contrasts American landscape: I, my friends and my mother can freely roam the city after midnight since local street crime is basically nonexistent, you really need to have bad luck or look for trouble in order to find it. What is also potential life saver. What in the end is also the work of the local government. Since they made violent street crime generally pointless through certain benefits, plus there is so little of it that if you do something half of police will be after you. Which are btw. doing their job well. This year I got locked in one building over night by accident and therefore I triggered the alarm. However I managed to sort this out on the spot without guns or anything, while in US there are decent chances that they would have just shoot me.



But as you wish, for me your desires are what I framed a number of times as "Marching on a horse into a tank battle". What just wouldn't be enough for the pilled up problems and global trends.

 

[anticlimatic]

In my book your fundamental problem here is that you don't get the difference between Socialism and Social-democracy. Just by saying that I am loyal to socialist stuff points out that you don't get things. Here we had a war to get rid of socialism and have social-democracy instead, since the difference is huge. One is a democracy and the other is a dictatorship. One spends it's huge power to help everyone and the other just the ruling oligarchy for the most part. One recognizes private ownership and business while the other doesn't. Social democracy actually tends to benefit people even more than the so called free market. Therefore in most areas it is not anything like socialist dictatorship, however your local elites have deliberately merged this two terms in order that they can give less to the people and create/maintain lower expectations. Not to mention that many social-democracies on this continent have condemned events in Venezuela as well (they even stood against USSR back in a day). This is because Social-democracy is tight pact between the citizens that is established through the government of the people, not a dictatorship. True, in my country we still have various loyalists of various ex systems but they aren't the majority in this country (despite being pretty vocal). We wanted independence exactly in order to crash socialism and establish social-democracy. However currently our biggest problem is that this governing model is being undone everywhere and we have to side either with our western allies that are getting increasingly corporate, neoliberal and pseudo democratic or openly totalitarian east that offers various economic deals and benefits at the cost of democracy. What in the end is "pick your poison" situation. Thus far the general desires are towards first world since there is greater potential for repairing the system but the east is getting increasingly assertive. However your words would surely tilt many people here towards the east. In other words your logic is very short sighted on a global map and relies on geographic isolation that in 21th century just isn't there. I will dare to use star trek analogy for my words. Borg attacks the Federation and your counter logic is that fundamentally it is every ship for itself in this mess. If possible they should be so small that they can't even have a warp drive in order to jump from for system to system or build more advanced ships. Therefore it is just a matter of time before Borg catches everyone, since you basically served yourself on a plate. In other words libertarian ideas are the greatest beneficiaries of totalitarian systems, since they are scattering the building blocks that otherwise might have a shot in resisting. I really hope that you saying that "fighting enemy invasions isn't the job of the government" is just a posting oversight on your part. Since that is what I named as the fist benefit of my government. Plus on that list of benefits I forgot one very important thing that contrasts American landscape: I, my friends and my mother can freely roam the city after midnight since local street crime is basically nonexistent, you really need to have bad luck or look for trouble in order to find it. What is also potential life saver. What in the end is also the work of the local government. Since they made violent street crime generally pointless through certain benefits, plus there is so little of it that if you do something half of police will be after you. Which are btw. doing their job well. This year I got locked in one building over night by accident and therefore I triggered the alarm. However I managed to sort this out on the spot without guns or anything, while in US there are decent chances that they would have just shoot me. But as you wish, for me your desires are what I framed a number of times as "Marching on a horse into a tank battle". What just wouldn't be enough for the pilled up problems and global trends.

Every time you quote me it seems you think I have a new problem! Your problem, I think, which is not your fault, is that the benefits your government offers you are set to expire, and your country will fall back into tyrany before too long unfortunately. But this is the natural and eventual scenario when you give government that amount of power. Eventually, despite the best intentions, it always corrupts and turns on its people. Remember what I said about principals and choosing which things to complicate and which to keep simple? This is an area where preventing tyranny relies on keeping it simple, and not giving in to the temptation of appearing to solve problems by creating a larger and worse one.

I don't think healthcare, housing, university, and other entitlements are the job of the government- but I didn't say anything about police, military, or infrastructure. I do believe those are tax dollars well spent- particularly police and military. Police to protect people's right to private property within, and military to protect people's rights to private property from without. This has always been understood in America, and why we have the most powerful armed forces in the world. Having a continent mostly to ourselves with oceans as borders also helps.

As far as local crime, there is none where I live. My house and car doors are never locked. In most of the right-leaning areas of the country (rural areas and small towns) there is almost no crime. It's only in the leftist strongholds- like big cities- where people feel entitled to things that aren't theirs (I don't believe this is a coincidence) and where corrupt elected officials are now doing ridiculously stupid things like defunding the police and bankrupting their cities by driving productive people away from them with high taxes in efforts to create little mini socialist states (to appease their leftist voter base, to get elected) leaving them primarily with people that have the mentality that they are owed something for nothing, and crime ensues.

 

[ceecee]

In Rural America, Violent Crime Reaches Highest Level in a Decade — Galsworthy Criminal Justice Reform Program

The state of Alaska, by far the most rural of American states has the highest rate of sexual assault in the entire country.

FBI report: Alaska sexual assault rate highest in nation

Just adding these little bits of info because when someone says - In most of the right-leaning areas of the country (rural areas and small towns) there is almost no crime - they mean property crime. People in rural areas tend to love punitive punishment - hence all the paranoia and there is less property crime because there are less people. Not because of some superiority, which is what is being implied. That's why police and military are worthy spending and anything else is not, it's a very typical authoritarian view.

Study Shows That Cities Are Safer Than Rural Areas, Despite Crime | TIME.com

That's why the levels of violence and abuse in rural areas is so high for the size of the population. Also mental illness and drug addition is through the roof in rural areas.

Violence and Abuse in Rural America Introduction - Rural Health Information Hub

I wonder when the conservatives will start viewing their own yards like the yards of Chicago that they do not care about but it's the single issue they always cite when it comes to cities.

I don't think it's fair to give Virtual Ghost such a rosy picture of rural America. I live in it, I assure you there is crime and many other problems, not to mention environmental crime and rampant defunding of anything to improve rural places by conservative/GOP politicians. Once again the view is - if it's not impacting me, it's not a problem.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Every time you quote me it seems you think I have a new problem! Your problem, I think, which is not your fault, is that the benefits your government offers you are set to expire, and your country will fall back into tyrany before too long unfortunately. But this is the natural and eventual scenario when you give government that amount of power. Eventually, despite the best intentions, it always corrupts and turns on its people. Remember what I said about principals and choosing which things to complicate and which to keep simple? This is an area where preventing tyranny relies on keeping it simple, and not giving in to the temptation of appearing to solve problems by creating a larger and worse one.

I don't think healthcare, housing, university, and other entitlements are the job of the government- but I didn't say anything about police, military, or infrastructure. I do believe those are tax dollars well spent- particularly police and military. Police to protect people's right to private property within, and military to protect people's rights to private property from without. This has always been understood in America, and why we have the most powerful armed forces in the world. Having a continent mostly to ourselves with oceans as borders also helps.

As far as local crime, there is none where I live. My house and car doors are never locked. In most of the right-leaning areas of the country (rural areas and small towns) there is almost no crime. It's only in the leftist strongholds- like big cities- where people feel entitled to things that aren't theirs (I don't believe this is a coincidence) and where corrupt elected officials are now doing ridiculously stupid things like defunding the police and bankrupting their cities by driving productive people away from them with high taxes in efforts to create little mini socialist states (to appease their leftist voter base, to get elected) leaving them primarily with people that have the mentality that they are owed something for nothing, and crime ensues.

If my country will become tyranny again that will almost surely be due to the foreign influence from the east that is expanding west. While all the social programs I am talking about exist in western Europe for generations. Exactly in the countries that usually beat the US in democracy and personal well being. They are under the assault from people who think similar to you but my bet is that they well probably hold in the end. Since that in the end is the will of the people, not the elites. Although I am not sure that this will work for the problems with the totalitarian east if people don't get serious about this.



On the other hand what you call left I call "crony capitalism" and "activism without competency". I mean of course that in rural areas crime is much smaller but I was talking about the country in general. Your crime level is quite high for a developed country. I mean for me at the end of the day you are all just Americans and I just sum the country in most cases. While on the other hand even if your army is big you don't have enough money to properly feed it without large deficit. Since you pushed for too many tax cuts and outsourced too much industry due to the desires for higher individual profit (what exploded stuff like food stamps and social security). This saga is also why you are sitting on 80 Trillion dollars of debt as a country, since there is no master plan. However if that debt bursts the military power might implode and therefore it is the individualism that might push the military over the edge. My whole point is that your individual decisions are out of sync with each other, what is almost inevitable trait of strong individualism. While there simply needs to be some standards to the market game to get all of this back together. What should better be sooner rather than latter, before the problem with the east snowball too much.




The point of my whole posting was to show that there are workable alternatives to American thinking. Also I would never be so pushy in the case you aren't so "defiant" all the time. However what will be we will see and I think I will stop here.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't think it's fair to give Virtual Ghost such a rosy picture of rural America. I live in it, I assure you there is crime and many other problems, not to mention environmental crime and rampant defunding of anything to improve rural places by conservative/GOP politicians. Once again the view is - if it's not impacting me, it's not a problem.

Well that depends on how you define rural areas. There are rural areas that are almost suburbs and there are "in the middle of the nowhere" rural areas. Therefore if there are no people around of course that there will be less crime, therefore it is better to judge this per capita. However in rural areas it is much easier to hide stuff like family violence and other subtle problems.


America as a whole it showing good number of social traits as my ex war zones and therefore I feel comfortable talking about this. Mass PTSD, guns that remained, politicians that could do a batter job, de-industrialization etc. While there are also very visible correlation between those ex war zones and voting for far right. Even if our far right is not really like American right in many things.

 

[anticlimatic]

If my country will become tyranny again that will almost surely be due to the foreign influence from the east that is expanding west. While all the social programs I am talking about exist in western Europe for generations. Exactly in the countries that usually beat the US in democracy and personal well being. They are under the assault from people who think similar to you but my bet is that they well probably hold in the end. Since that in the end is the will of the people, not the elites. Although I am not sure that this will work for the problems with the totalitarian east if people don't get serious about this. On the other hand what you call left I call "crony capitalism" and "activism without competency". I mean of course that in rural areas crime is much smaller but I was talking about the country in general. Your crime level is quite high for a developed country. I mean for me at the end of the day you are all just Americans and I just sum the country in most cases. While on the other hand even if your army is big you don't have enough money to properly feed it without large deficit. Since you pushed for too many tax cuts and outsourced too much industry due to the desires for higher individual profit (what exploded stuff like food stamps and social security). This saga is also why you are sitting on 80 Trillion dollars of debt as a country, since there is no master plan. However if that debt bursts the military power might implode and therefore it is the individualism that might push the military over the edge. My whole point is that your individual decisions are out of sync with each other, what is almost inevitable trait of strong individualism. While there simply needs to be some standards to the market game to get all of this back together. What should better be sooner rather than latter, before the problem with the east snowball too much. The point of my whole posting was to show that there are workable alternatives to American thinking. Also I would never be so pushy in the case you aren't so "defiant" all the time. However what will be we will see and I think I will stop here.

Defiant? I don't see myself as acting that way, but maybe that's just my inner american values coming out without my realizing it.


The type of socialism you vouch for might work in tiny European countries with strict borders and immigration policies, but the US is far too large and unique for it to work here. Good luck keeping government entitlements going with a steady stream of migrants and refugees filing into your country. I think Europe has been learning this lesson for a while now. The American left wants both- full socialist entitlements and open borders, despite the fact that they cancel each other out as a recipe for complete failure. Just another reason I take almost nothing they say seriously (and there are many many more).

So yes, while there ARE alternatives to American thinking that can work (at least until they are invaded by hungry mouths from the third world- which could use capitalism to raise itself out of poverty if it wished), those alternatives would not work for America. Which has always been MY point.

 

[ceecee]

Well that depends on how you define rural areas. There are rural areas that are almost suburbs and there are "in the middle of the nowhere" rural areas. Therefore if there are no people around of course that there will be less crime, therefore it is better to judge this per capita. However in rural areas it is much easier to hide stuff like family violence and other subtle problems.


America as a whole it showing good number of social traits as my ex war zones and therefore I feel comfortable talking about this. Mass PTSD, guns that remained, politicians that could do a batter job, de-industrialization etc. While there are also very visible correlation between those ex war zones and voting for far right. Even if our far right is not really like American right in many things.

The American left does not want open borders. This is a brain damaged view the right wing holds.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Defiant? I don't see myself as acting that way, but maybe that's just my inner american values coming out without my realizing it.


The type of socialism you vouch for might work in tiny European countries with strict borders and immigration policies, but the US is far too large and unique for it to work here. Good luck keeping government entitlements going with a steady stream of migrants and refugees filing into your country. I think Europe has been learning this lesson for a while now. The American left wants both- full socialist entitlements and open borders, despite the fact that they cancel each other out as a recipe for complete failure. Just another reason I take almost nothing they say seriously (and there are many many more).

So yes, while there ARE alternatives to American thinking that can work (at least until they are invaded by hungry mouths from the third world- which could use capitalism to raise itself out of poverty if it wished), those alternatives would not work for America. Which has always been MY point.

Well, I said "defiant" deliberately since I wanted to sound silly. Because I think that you take all of my words too seriously. For me all of this is more or less just a chat.



Regarding the US and benefits like healthcare, I think you are generally wrong but I will not repeat myself on that.


While open borders are for me mostly right wing stuff. Especially since the point is usually to artificially boost labor force numbers. What in large enough numbers probably harms the local labor on a number of ways. The idea of open borders as it's now came from US and therefore it is generally more accepted in the EU countries that have much more developed and longer relations with US. While here towards the east neither left or right people are really interested in this.

 

[anticlimatic]

Well, I said "defiant" deliberately since I wanted to sound silly. Because I think that you take all of my words too seriously. For me all of this is more or less just a chat.



Regarding the US and benefits like healthcare, I think you are generally wrong but I will not repeat myself on that.


While open borders are for me mostly right wing stuff. Especially since the point is usually to artificially boost labor force numbers. What in large enough numbers probably harms the local labor on a number of ways. The idea of open borders as it's now came from US and therefore it is generally more accepted in the EU countries that have much more developed and longer relations with US. While here towards the east neither left or right people are really interested in this.

Haha, it's just a chat for me too- but I enjoy taking seriously the things I enjoy, at least while I'm enjoying them. I am also content with agreeing to disagree, and don't particularly care to have the same discussion more than once.

It's interesting to me that it's the right wing of your country that supports open borders, because I always thought the right wing of our country would be more for it myself, at least with Mexico- which has a great deal in common, culturally, with much of the American right (religious, work ethic, etc).

 

[anticlimatic]

The American left does not want open borders. This is a brain damaged view the right wing holds.

Gee wiz Cees, I wonder where those "brain damaged" right wingers got that idea.

Do Democrats believe in open borders? By not enforcing immigration law, it looks that way.

For years, Republicans have claimed that Democrats favor “open borders” when it comes to immigration. Democrats have protested that this is an inaccurate depiction of their position.

Historically, Democrats were on sound ground rejecting Republican hyperbole about their views. These days, however, when you look at the array of positions in the party, from the rank and file to prominent 2020 contenders, “open borders” is starting to have the ring of truth.

Republicans want to change policy so that showing up at the border with a child and claiming asylum doesn’t automatically result in admission, in the belief that would staunch the flow overwhelming border resources.

What do Democrats want to do about this true crisis at the border? The implication of many of their assorted positions and assertions is: Let them all in.

 

[ceecee]

Gee wiz Cees, I wonder where those "brain damaged" right wingers got that idea.

Do Democrats believe in open borders? By not enforcing immigration law, it looks that way.

Since policy, not signs is what you should be focusing on (try I know it's hard) here is the most left politician speaking on the subject.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Haha, it's just a chat for me too- but I enjoy taking seriously the things I enjoy, at least while I'm enjoying them. I am also content with agreeing to disagree, and don't particularly care to have the same discussion more than once.

It's interesting to me that it's the right wing of your country that supports open borders, because I always thought the right wing of our country would be more for it myself, at least with Mexico- which has a great deal in common, culturally, with much of the American right (religious, work ethic, etc).

No I mean it more as your right, which is much closer to "standard" global definition of right. While my right is basically left that is socially conservative and is going to Church on Sunday.
However they actually support open borders towards other EU countries and to some degree a few neighboring countries. But beyond that "not really" for the most part. Actually many NGOs dislike us for strictly protecting outer EU border. Since in this part of the world borders are still important. As I said I am from EU version of red states.

 

[Mind Maverick]

What Trump really meant by "make America great again" was that when he's not reelected America will improve once more.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Opening the borders would be an enormous mistake.

 

[Lark]

Opening the borders would be an enormous mistake.

US has done a lot lately to detour people making it their destination, this is a pattern I predict will spread around the world.