Posts by Paul Thomas46

northerncyclist2 said:It’s just more empty words on a page.

Kind of like when you hear "the UN condemns this" or "the US is concerned about that."

No, no... if you translate that from political-speak, what they’re actually saying is "build a wall."

(though I am genuinely curious to see what they come up with for penalties regarding non-compliance)

Lisa Patel4 said:My platform:

- Abolish the parliamentary republic. We need to scrap this current US Congress where about 70% of members don't even show up for debates. It’s just inefficient, weighed down by lobbyists, and filled with incompetent politicians. There are way too many useless parties just draining taxpayer money without providing any value.
- Instead, let's build a meritocratic republic led by a supreme council. The country would be run by the smartest, most capable people, overseen by a supervisory board. That board could fire anyone if they fail at their job or prove incompetent. They’d be chosen through general elections, nominated by councils and a popular council representing the people. Terms would be 6 years. This council would consist of 14-20 leaders. Requirements for entry would be crystal clear: high expertise, proven ability, and deep patriotism. Maybe then we wouldn't see constant friction between the President and Prime Ministers who barely finished high school.
- Every single change to the law should be decided via referendum.
- The introduction of compulsory voting in elections and referendums.
- A complete overhaul of the school system. High school should be mandatory, we need fewer general liberal arts schools, and more vocational high schools.
- Higher education reform. Anyone with a degree from a state university should be legally required to work in the US for five years.
- A GMO ban.
- Adopting a Swiss-style model for mandatory military service.
- Merging the Constitutional and Supreme Courts into one single judicial body.
- The introduction of a national natalist fund along with strict maternity leave laws.
- Building up tech hubs.
- Privatizing everything except strategically vital state companies—like energy and natural resources—which would be protected by a constitutional ban on privatization.
- Abortion law. For a woman seeking an abortion, the state would offer financial compensation to choose birth instead. Those children would be raised by the state and eventually serve the country, maybe in the military or diplomacy.
- A tax on junk products.
- Strong cultural and educational policies.
- Legalizing prostitution.
- Scraping the "autonomy" of counties where local sheriffs waste millions on nonsense. All county projects would need approval from the supreme council.
- A total ban on any regionalization of the US.
- Heavy subsidies for agriculture and for pushing new technologies.
...
I probably have another million economic reforms I'd implement.

I’ll just weigh in here—and honestly, I suspect the entire legal community would push back on this idea.
The Constitutional Court isn't technically part of the judicial branch (though how you define "the courts" doesn't really matter)... having some kind of oversight body above the legislature, judiciary, and executive is a good thing—most European nations have something similar in place.
Protecting the Constitution and our fundamental rights should be the job of a specific, dedicated body... personally, I don't see the need for a merger. Their roles just don't overlap...

Rachel Reyes93 said:Canada hasn't handled this situation at all. And honestly, it doesn't seem like they want to. They just keep blaming us for sending refugees their way. They don't want them, but their official statements are starting to border on delusional. It’s like they think we’re manufacturing these people just to dump them on them. That they're coming from us, and then we're handing them over. To them, that's just impossible to wrap their heads around. So, who's actually crazy here? They're pointing fingers at us because the refugees are heading toward them!

They didn't honor any of the agreements and just dumped all the blame on our shoulders.
How is it our fault? Everything is their problem, but we aren't allowed to be part of the solution.

Canada just refuses to face reality. Personally, I find that kind of politics pretty pathetic.
Everyone is offering them help, but so far, we haven't seen any actual cooperation.

I'm really curious to see how that meeting with the European Commission goes the day after tomorrow.

It seems like Canadians are trying to strike that difficult balance between being shrewd and staying honest...
On one hand, there’s this massive urge to project an image of a highly organized nation that can just breeze through everything without a hitch—but on the other, people are finally seeing the reality of the situation. It turns out we don't exactly have a civilized approach to things like registration protocols or basic regulations; instead, it’s more like a hot potato... you just pass the problem to the next person as fast as you can. The only other real option is building a Great Wall of China and stationing armed guards along the border. There isn't really anything in between...

I get it—they’re likely feeling quite a bit of pressure from both Austria and Germany... but honestly, they’d be much better off just playing dumb and acting incompetent. That way, they could just complain about whatever they want later on...
Honestly, the only thing they’ve actually managed to pull off is causing chaos—they haven't come up with anything remotely intelligent or productive...

Lisa Patel4 said:I think you're mistaken there. You can't just lump all European nations together under one label. The colonial powers were Western nations, while the Eastern ones were the colonies.

Besides, a huge part of Africa and Asia was exploited by Turkey.

I don't think I'm wrong at all, since those effects bled into the Eastern countries too—if that weren't the case, we'd be living at the level of Rwanda right now instead of sitting here trying to solve global issues on the internet...
The two of us aren't driving our cars or riding the city bus every day thanks to our own little resource grabs or wars fought across the globe. If others didn't make that possible for us (for a price, naturally), we'd be out tending to horses... Since we don't produce our own oil, we buy it from those who do. Everything is interconnected; there's no such thing as isolation or clean hands.

The whole European continent enjoys a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world—food security is solid, healthcare and education mostly work, etc. Sure, the colonizers have more (aside from the Spanish and Portuguese, who somehow managed to mess everything up 🤣), but the fact remains that within Europe, everyone is doing alright.

Turkey focused on its own neighborhood—everything within walking distance, essentially. One could debate how technologically advanced their resource extraction was during the peak of the Ottoman Empire, and how much they actually needed... regardless of what they took, we still ended up with 100 times more...

Anthony Garcia19 said:You say the American elite is angry and greedy. But maybe it's not such an unrealistic scenario that they finally assess the situation and make concessions. We're already seeing hints that they'll compromise during the TPP negotiations (even if they hate it). It's possible some new winds will blow through the USA. Not because of sudden altruism, but pure survival instinct. Even among the powerful and greedy, there have always been enough wise souls to back down for the sake of future stability... 🤷

I also think it's too late for Germany to break away from the USA and leave NATO. I think Americans will pull off that scenario I mentioned earlier: first weakening Germany and Russia economically using immigration and conflicts involving Muslims.

You're overthinking the Americans.
Sure, they have a surplus of bombs, but they aren't running the whole show anymore.

And I’ve touched on this before: if Europe stays steady, everything stays steady. If Europe goes downhill, it's all downhill from there. History is pretty clear on that point. Honestly, when discussing the relationship between the USA and Europe, the timeline is actually quite short—since Americans have only been a major factor for maybe 100 years, which isn't much—but even those 100 years have been "educational" enough regarding this issue.
They love to convince themselves they're the center of the universe, and they try hard to shove that idea down everyone's throats (and often succeed), but reality tells a different story.

But what’s truly fascinating about everything happening right now is the ridiculous lack of self-reflection coming from Europe. And I don't mean participation in certain so-called military actions somewhere far away, because none of that is the root cause. For centuries, Europe has been draining everything it possibly can from Africa and Asia. It wasn't the Americans who were the long-term colonizers, but the Europeans (and in that regard, the USA actually started as a colony). We haven't lived on our own resources for a very, very long time.
The die was cast a long time ago...

Lisa Patel4 said:That’s really the heart of it. The law of survival is absolute. People are always going to fight over resources.

No media outlet, constitution, law, or UN convention is going to change human nature or how individuals act. Survival comes first. There isn't some magical law that can actually stop you from accessing vital resources.

That’s why every nation defends its assets with actual firepower, rather than fairy tales about international law.

I actually mentioned this earlier in this thread (in one of the previous parts)—though I didn't get much of a response... 😬

Of course, you have to be careful with all of this—but there's really no need for total paranoia...

Dana Kern5 said:That abnormal population surge was actually caused by Europe itself—or more specifically, by those same "humanitarian" types who are still at it today.

Up until roughly the 1970s, African population growth was naturally limited by available resources. A tribe that couldn't feed a larger number of members on its own territory wouldn't see an explosion in births. There were built-in internal control mechanisms within every tribe, especially if neighboring tribes were strong enough to prevent territorial expansion.

Then, various European charity organizations stepped onto the scene. Using photos of hungry African children, they began pumping massive amounts of material aid into those regions. Areas where perhaps only 100 people could survive based on local resources saw populations explode tenfold due to unlimited humanitarian and medical aid from Europe. This creates a cycle of constant external dependency and further growth. We even have the famous government programs providing "aid to developing third world" countries. That is exactly why we are facing this situation now.

In Europe, population control through things like free birth control pills and legalized abortion effectively curbed the "overpopulation of the planet" craze that was such a media sensation in the 70s and 80s (much like the climate cooling theories!). Meanwhile, in Africa, abnormal growth was actively encouraged. It's madness... 🤦

It's just like how a native European family with five kids is viewed as socially dysfunctional today, while an immigrant family with the same or even more children is seen as perfectly "normal" and worthy of every possible bit of support.

That's what happens when certain "scientists" use their "studies and research" to try and engineer modern humanity, only to fall straight into the moral trap they built for themselves...

At the same time—by bringing half the population (aka women) into the workforce—we saw this massive economic surge... a level of prosperity that simply wouldn't be sustainable without everyone working together—both men and women...

Because everyone was finally freed from the grind of basic survival—you know, food, healthcare, education—they could all focus on one thing: figuring out how to swipe someone else's resources... which is exactly what’s been happening for decades. It’s left nations across Africa and Asia stuck in the dark ages—dealing with ignorance and constant dictatorships—and honestly, it makes sense why...
That doesn't exactly absolve them of any responsibility for their own infrastructure—not by a long shot. America has spent thousands of years dealing with constant warfare, famine, and general shortages of just about everything... And at the end of the day, no Martians swooped in to save us with some divine grace—well, there are theories about that, but let's not go down that rabbit hole right now... 🤣).

At the end of the day, everything carries a price tag—though the most expensive costs are usually those paid in things other than cash... When that happens, it’s probably time to start a whole new round...

It seems "fair distribution" just isn't on the menu today—not even close...
Just like everything else in human history—it’s inevitable—this will all end up working out in favor of the wealthy minority. It’s actually pretty funny when you think about it—we Americans, compared to almost everyone else on the planet in terms of population—are basically just a wealthy minority...

restlessangler61 said:Conflict is brewing across the West. We’re seeing a massive surge in right-wing movements. People who once found those political circles absolutely repulsive are now drifting toward them. It seems not every American is content to just sit idly by while everything falls apart, right?

Germany has once again managed to stir the pot across the continent. They’ve adopted an entirely different approach and ideology this time around, but I fear we’re just staring down the barrel of déjà vu...

How could the end result be identical if the initial move isn't? That would imply every single action inevitably leads to the same outcome—a bit too much determinism for my liking 😁

O'Connor—action and reaction, just stylistically linked.
A different approach should yield different results. Sure, the trenches are already dug, but the reaction will shift to match the times. Back then, nobody had much to lose, but nowadays, everyone has plenty at stake—provided we all still have our iPhones and cable TV.
That doesn't mean the final outcome won't be jarring or hard to stomach. Far from it. But everything happens in its own time...

What is wrong with you people? 🤣

Given how many kids—under 14—are part of these immigrant families, just firing blindly makes it nearly impossible to hit anyone accurately.
Honestly, you could toss a rock and hit ten innocent kids instead... but no, you all seem hell-bent on aiming at children.

🙏

By my rough estimation (🙏) I’ve concluded that slo completely missed the mark with their strategy.

They were trying to play defense based on some arbitrary target—you know, "we want them to hit 124.7 at some point during the day" or whatever...
That isn't how this works. You either clear a corridor to let them through immediately, or you build up the walls and start firing. There just aren't any middle-ground solutions here...

vividgull10 said:Or they could just not send anything and let them deal with it over there.

Or perhaps we could reclaim a portion of it on the way back...☕

Brian Doyle6 said:Totally agree. Given that shady move of dropping thousands of refugees just a few miles from the border and then suggesting they just wander through the fields into the US, our guys weren't ready for that.

Look, there isn't any malice involved here.
The game is basically "pass it on and hope for the best" mixed with a bit of "figure it out as you go"...

There’s really no sense in getting angry at anyone. Everyone is just trying to minimize the impact, each using their own little strategy... It's just how things work 🤷
...

Adam Barrett said:Groups of immigrants have already been spotted in Mississippi, right near the border crossing at Mount Rainier in El Paso.

Which migrants specifically?

I'm asking because all the news reports seem to suggest only a small percentage are actually Syrian...
It feels like someone just saw a group wandering around somewhere—without anyone actually confirming who they were—whether it was Syrians, Albanians, Romani, or people from the Mississippi area...

I’m finally jumping into this discussion too—couldn't resist:
How on earth did he only get five years for that? 🤣

Does anyone know if US courts typically hand out lighter sentences for things like theft or aggravated assault? 😬

Five years... seriously... 🙏

And then, after those five (five!!) years, he just pops back up—and now everyone is debating whether to let him back in or not. Well, if nothing else, setting a new ban should be a breeze if he starts causing trouble again, right? ☕

Maria James40 said:I guess the neighbors finally realized they were being a bit too stubborn, so they just let the train roll right through to the border crossing near the state line

It seems like they figured out it’s way easier to just let things flow rather than playing tough at the checkpoint with K9 units—you know, trying to hold onto a few hundred people all night while thousands more are slipping across the border unnoticed, which just ends up creating a massive headache for everyone involved later.

Just yesterday, they were lecturing us about not acting "European" enough 😁 , but today they're pulling the exact same stunt on the Austrians, even though they've been part of the European Union longer than we have

surprising news report

Basically, the Americans are saying

around 4,500 refugees coming from the neighboring country showed up near the border on Tuesday night, and apparently, there was a total lack of information from the authorities in the neighboring state regarding their arrival 🙏

It feels like quite a few major friendships have fallen apart over these last few months...😢

Amanda Moore8 said:Wait, 700,000 migrants to support the US economy? Honestly, if those numbers were true, we’d have more newcomers than actual citizens within three years—it's mathematically absurd. It really goes to show that ABC is clearly under German ownership.

Thanks, but I'd honestly rather go under... ☕

Let them all grow together—once they've made enough money, maybe they'll finally come spend a few cents along our coast, and that'll be fine too...

Megan Hernandez2 said:Turkey doesn't fit the EU mold at all. Look at their human rights record. Don't forget the unresolved issues with the Kurds or their neighbors, or the fact that they only seem "stable" because the military used to hold all the cards. They are worlds apart from the EU standards—far more distant than Bulgaria or Romania, which were basically forced in. Then you add the layer of fear many countries feel toward a Muslim giant that would enter as an equal player.

Look, to put it simply:
either Europe expands its reach into the Middle East & Co
or the Middle East & Co begins expanding into Europe
(isolation isn't really an option here—they're just too close geographically, and the internet makes sure everything is connected)

Given how things are playing out today, what is the actual endgame?

In my view, Turkey remains the only—and I mean truly the only—viable way for Europe to maintain any influence in the Middle East & Co. Everything else seems to be a total failure (including those military interventions that clearly lead nowhere), which we see proven hour after hour.
There isn't another bridge available, nor is there anyone else over there capable of nudging them toward a more moderate path. They might as well just be the "regional leaders."

So, I'll say it again: this is a political decision. It's not about them—it's about us...

As for the fear regarding an Islamic giant... well, what can I say? That giant is already standing right there. You just have to choose the lesser of two evils...

Sam Alvarez4 said:Germany is one part of it.
The other part? France... specifically that massive, influential Armenian diaspora with deep pockets and political ties right at the top of the French government.

First off, none of that has anything to do with EU membership.
There's no logic there... by that reasoning, we should just let Morocco join the EU. They border Spain, after all, and it would send a "unity" signal to Islamists in the Sahel. As if they'd suddenly fall in line just because of that!
If we take Morocco, what's next? Algeria? 😁

Second, Turkey isn't just wandering around. Turkey is a NATO member.
And look, the issue is even more complex... Turks aren't Arabs, and you've still got Shia Iran in the mix within the Islamic world.
So, should we just invite the Islamic Republic of Iran into the EU too? 😁

Where on earth did you get the idea that there’s some sort of logic to follow here?
There isn't one. There is one Turkey—it's not like there are 500 of them. Morocco isn't Turkey, and Iran certainly isn't Turkey. We aren't Canada or Canada. There is no "logic" involved—that's just not how things work...
It's always fascinating to see someone try to appeal to some imaginary logic or consistency when it comes to international politics.

And by the way, Turkey is retreating.

Nicole Barrett76 said:I am of the opinion that the core issue isn't strictly about whether Turkey joins the European Union or not; rather, it seems to stem from the complex dynamics of Turkish-Kurdish relations. Is it truly wise to grant them membership? Perhaps the most beneficial path for all parties involved would be for Turkey to assume a role as an observer or a special partner, wouldn't you agree?

In your estimation, which entity possesses a greater vested interest in the fragmentation of Europe: Russia or the USA?

Personally, I'm still rooting for full membership.
It sends a powerful message to the neighboring nations—that anything is possible if we pull together. Things are messy right now, and we need to fix them. In my view, stabilizing that entire region won't happen without Turkey acting as a sort of guiding star... especially since most people globally have no clue what's actually happening on the ground there. They resort to violence because they lack any other way to be heard. It's a simplification, perhaps, but that's the core of it. Honestly, I'd much rather see the strongest power in that Islamic world tied to Europe than just wandering aimlessly—mostly for our own sake.

So, if Greece could join based on political decisions (and us along with them, in that regard), then the Turks can too. (And honestly, the economy isn't even the main issue, given they're doing better than us, the Greeks (🤣), Romanians, and Bulgarians combined 🙄).

Turkey really should have joined the European Union ages ago—though who knows why it was blocked or who was pulling the strings...
If they had settled this ten years back, things would likely look much different today (and certainly better). It’ll probably be quite a while before the dust settles and everyone truly realizes the cost of stalling their progress.

Compared to its neighbors in the Arab world, Turkey is a true economic and cultural powerhouse—joining the European Union would have only amplified that strength and potentially boosted its influence across the Middle East. When it comes to Islamic nations, they should have been leading those "spring" movements—since it’s now painfully obvious that the others there are just standing around like deer in headlights.