American Politics

[Reebi]

Yes and no, honestly the whole 'intervention' argument is a lot less black and white than intervention = bad, keeping out = good... I know there's been incidents, particularly Iraq where the whole WMDs thing seems to have been wholly fabricated as an excuse to interven, where we've definitely overstepped the mark of what should be reasonably acceptable, but on the other hand 'doing nothing' in other cases is just as hard (Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, for e.g.). The Middle East in particular is a complete moral quagmire, you have the case of, ok in the 60s-80s it was western policy to install/ support dictators in countries to try and have some sort of stability brought to them. So we ended up forcing countries to live under often brutal totalitarian regimes. But then, as with Saddam, if we go in to take them out and let democracy flourish, you invariably end up with a new democratic regime elected by the majority that will persecute minorities like it's going out of style. (See Christians and Muslim minorities in Iraq post Saddam). Thanks to borders of convenience, most ME countries have a real mix of Sunni, Shia, minority Muslim, and other ethno-religious groups, and they tend to have been at war for centuries. When you remove the 'strong man' government (in most cases the French/British imperial regime, followed by new dictators installed from the 60s after most countries effectively collapsed into anarchy) then civil war is the most likely outcome, and always will be until borders align with ethno-religious groupings. (Incidentally, wars in Europe stopped after WW2 when borders finally reflected European cultural/ ethnic groups on the map, so the principle does seem to work).

Similar story as far as resources go, on one hand, realistically to develop their natural resources in order to benefit from them, most less developed countries need the cash, and moreso the expertise of multinational companies like big mining or oil majors - and in return it's got to be that those companies can make a reasonable (I guess that's the key word) return on the investment that they make. Ultimately having resources is no good if you can't benefit from developing and selling them abroad. There are incidents where, again, the intervention to help develop resources goes wrong, and one that particularly sticks in my mind is the UN loaning Sudan a significant sum of money to grow and export cotton. Long story short, cotton is a thirsty crop, Sudan is hit by a drought, which leads to a famine, they want to replace a chunk of the cotton crop with subsistence crops to help ease water and food shortages, but the UN refuse to let them do that because it would make repaying the loan impossible with the lost revenue from the cotton industry. Great, the organisation that's meant to be helping these countries basically pistol whips a government into letting its people starve. So yeah, the world is a pretty messed up place, some of it's our fault, some of it's stuff that predates western intervention, but ultimately, effectively stealing the skilled labour from the countries who could benefit from it most is as bad as making a country sell us unrefined oil on the cheap so we can process it and sell it back to them at a profit.

Yes I think you're right to suggest it's a slightly different situation in NA to Eur, though with cheap mass flights that's becoming less the case now. The fact is Angela Merkel effectively showed that Europe is unprepared and unable to take in the sort of quantities of people who wish to come. There's also the not so small issue of separating economic migrants from genuine refugees given the current crisis. The fact that up to 9 in 10 arrivals are young men tells you something there - they are the people who should be fighting to regain control of their country - if European men (and in many cases boys) had fled to safety in the USA rather than fighting Hitler in WW2 it's likely fascism would ultimately have conquered most of, at least Afro-Eurasia, if not the entire globe. No, pure economic migrants abusing a crisis to try and slip through immigration controls is a serious offence that really does need to be stopped. There was also a story recently about "refugees" actually taking holidays back in their countries of origin to visit family members! Abusing the system that's meant to help people who really need it should mean instant disqualification/ deportation, that's really not on.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 5, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 5, 2017 ---

Yes and no, honestly the whole 'intervention' argument is a lot less black and white than intervention = bad, keeping out = good... I know there's been incidents, particularly Iraq where the whole WMDs thing seems to have been wholly fabricated as an excuse to interven, where we've definitely overstepped the mark of what should be reasonably acceptable, but on the other hand 'doing nothing' in other cases is just as hard (Assad using chemical weapons in Syria, for e.g.). The Middle East in particular is a complete moral quagmire, you have the case of, ok in the 60s-80s it was western policy to install/ support dictators in countries to try and have some sort of stability brought to them. So we ended up forcing countries to live under often brutal totalitarian regimes. But then, as with Saddam, if we go in to take them out and let democracy flourish, you invariably end up with a new democratic regime elected by the majority that will persecute minorities like it's going out of style. (See Christians and Muslim minorities in Iraq post Saddam). Thanks to borders of convenience, most ME countries have a real mix of Sunni, Shia, minority Muslim, and other ethno-religious groups, and they tend to have been at war for centuries. When you remove the 'strong man' government (in most cases the French/British imperial regime, followed by new dictators installed from the 60s after most countries effectively collapsed into anarchy) then civil war is the most likely outcome, and always will be until borders align with ethno-religious groupings. (Incidentally, wars in Europe stopped after WW2 when borders finally reflected European cultural/ ethnic groups on the map, so the principle does seem to work).

Similar story as far as resources go, on one hand, realistically to develop their natural resources in order to benefit from them, most less developed countries need the cash, and moreso the expertise of multinational companies like big mining or oil majors - and in return it's got to be that those companies can make a reasonable (I guess that's the key word) return on the investment that they make. Ultimately having resources is no good if you can't benefit from developing and selling them abroad. There are incidents where, again, the intervention to help develop resources goes wrong, and one that particularly sticks in my mind is the UN loaning Sudan a significant sum of money to grow and export cotton. Long story short, cotton is a thirsty crop, Sudan is hit by a drought, which leads to a famine, they want to replace a chunk of the cotton crop with subsistence crops to help ease water and food shortages, but the UN refuse to let them do that because it would make repaying the loan impossible with the lost revenue from the cotton industry. Great, the organisation that's meant to be helping these countries basically pistol whips a government into letting its people starve. So yeah, the world is a pretty messed up place, some of it's our fault, some of it's stuff that predates western intervention, but ultimately, effectively stealing the skilled labour from the countries who could benefit from it most is as bad as making a country sell us unrefined oil on the cheap so we can process it and sell it back to them at a profit.

Yes I think you're right to suggest it's a slightly different situation in NA to Eur, though with cheap mass flights that's becoming less the case now. The fact is Angela Merkel effectively showed that Europe is unprepared and unable to take in the sort of quantities of people who wish to come. There's also the not so small issue of separating economic migrants from genuine refugees given the current crisis. The fact that up to 9 in 10 arrivals are young men tells you something there - they are the people who should be fighting to regain control of their country - if European men (and in many cases boys) had fled to safety in the USA rather than fighting Hitler in WW2 it's likely fascism would ultimately have conquered most of, at least Afro-Eurasia, if not the entire globe. No, pure economic migrants abusing a crisis to try and slip through immigration controls is a serious offence that really does need to be stopped. There was also a story recently about "refugees" actually taking holidays back in their countries of origin to visit family members! Abusing the system that's meant to help people who really need it should mean instant disqualification/ deportation, that's really not on.

I know some refugees in Canada don't get a passport but a travel document that doesn't work in their country of orgin.

 

[M3J]

Anyone hear how DeVos rolled back Obama-era protection against sexual assaults on college campuses?

 

[Reebi]

Anyone hear how DeVos rolled back Obama-era protection against sexual assaults on college campuses?

Sexual assult is very hard to prove because it comes down to consent and therefore cannot be tried under convention means. It's not just the US having difficulty understanding thus concept here in Canada it's not campuses that gain attention it is high profile (police were recently found not guilty and same with a broadcaster). However, any age shouldn't experience unwanted sexual assult.

 

[kkck]

That is one thing I am somewhat iffy about. I just now learned that sexual assault cases require less than beyond reasonable for someone to be found guilty. I am not particularly inclined to believing this will result in rampant lying in court where innocent people get prosecuted as sex offenders but the standard being lowered for charges as serious as that has some serious implications. I would not support the measure, it's not like the solution to sexual assault anywhere can be found in courts.

 

[Reebi]

That is one thing I am somewhat iffy about. I just now learned that sexual assault cases require less than beyond reasonable for someone to be found guilty. I am not particularly inclined to believing this will result in rampant lying in court where innocent people get prosecuted as sex offenders but the standard being lowered for charges as serious as that has some serious implications. I would not support the measure, it's not like the solution to sexual assault anywhere can be found in courts.

The accuser still has to prove the allegations because it's innocent proven guilty. The case ends up being he said she said and the courts usually favour the defenant. From the victims perceptive, how can there be justice when most sexual allegations are proven not guilty? That suggests we have a bunch of liars but if someone was brave enough to go to the authorities and fill out a police report, they can't all be ones. Also, if few sex allegations get criminal offenses, what does that say if a victim wants to come forward?

 

[kkck]

The accuser still has to prove the allegations because it's innocent proven guilty. The case ends up being he said she said and the courts usually favour the defenant. From the victims perceptive, how can there be justice when most sexual allegations are proven not guilty? That suggests we have a bunch of liars but if someone was brave enough to go to the authorities and fill out a police report, they can't all be ones. Also, if few sex allegations get criminal offenses, what does that say if a victim wants to come forward?

That is very misleading. Sure, you technically have to prove it but it's one thing to prove something conforming to beyond reasonable doubt and another entirely to prove something to meet preponderance of evidence standards. Preponderance of evidence in used in civil cases precisely because the stakes are lower, they usually are resolved with compensation. The stakes in this case are in no form or context low, for the potential victim as for the potential assaulter. It's completely fair to want to overhaul the system to encourage victims to speak out but it is not fair towards accused people that the standard of proof for such a severe, potentially life ruining accusation, to be so low.

 

[Reebi]

That is very misleading. Sure, you technically have to prove it but it's one thing to prove something conforming to beyond reasonable doubt and another entirely to prove something to meet preponderance of evidence standards. Preponderance of evidence in used in civil cases precisely because the stakes are lower, they usually are resolved with compensation. The stakes in this case are in no form or context low, for the potential victim as for the potential assaulter. It's completely fair to want to overhaul the system to encourage victims to speak out but it is not fair towards accused people that the standard of proof for such a severe, potentially life ruining accusation, to be so low.

But how can the victims be encouraged to come forward when the system is broken and they are most likely have to share their story in public where they tell intimate details of his/her personal life, get cross-examined where he/she is blamed for the incident because the point of the defence isn't to prove the defendant is innocent but the victim is not creditable? Oh, and the defendant sometimes isn't on the stand. After the trail, it's most likely a "not guilty".

The problem is the system is too afraid of having an innocent person convicted that too many people have gone free. Where is the justice? Yes, having a sexual conviction is serious but it's unlikely going to lead to conviction and what about the majority of those that don't receive justice?

 

[kkck]

But how can the victims be encouraged to come forward when the system is broken and they are most likely have to share their story in public where they tell intimate details of his/her personal life, get cross-examined where he/she is blamed for the incident because the point of the defence isn't to prove the defendant is innocent but the victim is not creditable? Oh, and the defendant sometimes isn't on the stand. After the trail, it's most likely a "not guilty".

The problem is the system is too afraid of having an innocent person convicted that too many people have gone free. Where is the justice? Yes, having a sexual conviction is serious but it's unlikely going to lead to conviction and what about the majority of those that don't receive justice?

The system is broken, that much is true, but it is not because the burden of proof is too strict. Diminishing the burden of proof requirements doesn't solve victim blaming issues and other nonsense chikanery which can go on here. And yeah, the system is afraid of sending innocent people convicted, that is absolutely true. And it is also how it should be, the entire point of the system is to not have innocent people prosecuted. The issues surrounding sexual assault on campus or elsewhere are ultimately cultural, the solution to that won't be found at any court. When it comes to investigations the issue is victim blaming and whatever other variety of the victim's sexual history being brought up (which is every sex assault case it is 100% irrelevant). That is not solved by lowering the burden of proof standard but rather people simply accepting that the victim's sexual history is 100% irrelevant to the fact she was assaulted.

 

[Reebi]

The system is broken, that much is true, but it is not because the burden of proof is too strict. Diminishing the burden of proof requirements doesn't solve victim blaming issues and other nonsense chikanery which can go on here. And yeah, the system is afraid of sending innocent people convicted, that is absolutely true. And it is also how it should be, the entire point of the system is to not have innocent people prosecuted. The issues surrounding sexual assault on campus or elsewhere are ultimately cultural, the solution to that won't be found at any court. When it comes to investigations the issue is victim blaming and whatever other variety of the victim's sexual history being brought up (which is every sex assault case it is 100% irrelevant). That is not solved by lowering the burden of proof standard but rather people simply accepting that the victim's sexual history is 100% irrelevant to the fact she was assaulted.

Actually, the justice system is to bring people to justice. If someone commits a crime, they should be charged accordingly. It costs a lot of money if they convict someone and is retried as innocent. Also, is hard to prove consent and sexual history in most courts is irrelevant. Most sexual assults aren't some random dude attacking a woman and raping her. It could be touching or oral sex - anything unwanted down there. Even if that were the case, the attacker could lie and say it was concentual; thus the problem. Due to innocent proven guilty, the victim has to prove their truth when the defendant doesn't have to. This means the system is broken for sexual assult cases.

I actually know someone who was falsely accused with friends and there maybe false accusation or miscommunication; however, those aren't all the case.

This article is really good for intoxicated sexual assaults, which happen on campus.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...4338370/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

[M3J]

Sexual assult is very hard to prove because it comes down to consent and therefore cannot be tried under convention means. It's not just the US having difficulty understanding thus concept here in Canada it's not campuses that gain attention it is high profile (police were recently found not guilty and same with a broadcaster). However, any age shouldn't experience unwanted sexual assult.

Problem is, this makes it easier for offenders to get away with their shit, and many get away as it is, like Brock Turner, unless they're not white or wealthy. It's worse among college students because there are some judges who are worried about the white offenders' future that they try to impose a light sentence if possible. While there are women who tend to lie, that's no justification for hurting other women.

Besides, pretty sure most women wouldn't want to go on a trial given the shit that happens, like victim blaming and offender-defending.

 

[Reebi]

Problem is, this makes it easier for offenders to get away with their shit, and many get away as it is, like Brock Turner, unless they're not white or wealthy. It's worse among college students because there are some judges who are worried about the white offenders' future that they try to impose a light sentence if possible. While there are women who tend to lie, that's no justification for hurting other women.

Besides, pretty sure most women wouldn't want to go on a trial given the shit that happens, like victim blaming and offender-defending.

Some schools it goes through a tribunal before they contact police which is worse. Plus, campuses don't want to tarnish their name so they want to keep the sexual assaults hush hush. Anyone who is a victim should contact police but what really needs to be done is learning about consent. Assuming someone is up for certain things doesn't mean they are up for others and drunk people can't say yes and no. Also, drugging people to get laid is ridiculous and should be charged. The bottom line is respecting people and their boundaries because what happens if that was their sister, friend or even them?

 

[M3J]

Agreed, educating people on consent is better than telling women what they can and cannot do or wear to avoid being raped. Onus should be on the offender, not the victim, to not assault.

 

[kkck]

So.... Do we take trumps nk threats as a joke or seriously?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 20, 2017 ---

My first guess is as a joke given that there is no military option against nk that does not screw over us allies.

 

[M3J]

I'd say him being all talk as usual, but didn't he allow an attack in Syria and pissed off Russia?

 

[Reebi]

So.... Do we take trumps nk threats as a joke or seriously?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 20, 2017 ---

My first guess is as a joke given that there is no military option against nk that does not screw over us allies.

With him baiting North Korea and all these hurricanes and earthquakes, I wouldn't be surprised if the world ended this week.

 

[kkck]

With him baiting North Korea and all these hurricanes and earthquakes, I wouldn't be surprised if the world ended this week.

It's not like NK can do anything TBH. The most likely scenario is that they will continue business as usual and simply back down for a week or two, then insult trump, and then threaten everyone. Exactly as they did a few weeks back. I doubt there is much chance of them nuking anything... The moment they do that they get nuked out of existence, which is the opposite of their long term goal (survival).

 

[Reebi]

It's not like NK can do anything TBH. The most likely scenario is that they will continue business as usual and simply back down for a week or two, then insult trump, and then threaten everyone. Exactly as they did a few weeks back. I doubt there is much chance of them nuking anything... The moment they do that they get nuked out of existence, which is the opposite of their long term goal (survival).

The missiles they sent out were clearly warnings and more baiting. If Trump keeps poking the bear is going to attack out of spite. Allies are preventing a full scale war but they can only do so much.

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

If it is true that Kim is developing nukes only to prevent a regime change and just survive,then I don't see why he would invade or nuke anything.And if he won't be an aggressor then Trump won't have to "destroy North Korea".No nuclear war incoming,sorry.

 

[Reebi]

If it is true that Kim is developing nukes only to prevent a regime change and just survive,then I don't see why he would invade or nuke anything.And if he won't be an aggressor then Trump won't have to "destroy North Korea".No nuclear war incoming,sorry.

He send two nuclear missiles over Japan. That carries huge risk because what if they something went wrong and hit Japan? That shows he is a cocky bastard for thinking it wouldn't do damage. Luckily no one was hurt so they must have really researched but there is still a chance it could have caused damage and they launched knowing or ignoring that risk. These weapons aren't just for defence.

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

He send two nuclear missiles over Japan. That carries huge risk because what if they something went wrong and hit Japan? That shows he is a cocky bastard for thinking it wouldn't do damage. Luckily no one was hurt so they must have really researched but there is still a chance it could have caused damage and they launched knowing or ignoring that risk. These weapons aren't just for defence.

It wasn't a nuclear missile but rather just a missile (unarmed ICBM).That was just a show of power.