Make Inishturk Great Again
-
-
Donald Trump wouldn't be so bad if he'd leave his hair, his speech and his money that rules everything behind.
Actually it's the hair I just can't stand... I can laugh a lot at his nonsense speech and I could find incredibly good uses for his money...
EDIT: Both speech and money would make a lot of sense in an irish pub!
-
The 'Donald' or Hillary! I pity the USA with so limited a choice. If I had a vote there I would vote for Trump simply because he is a deal maker more that a war monger.
The huge build up of NATO missiles on Russia's front door is quite worrying to me and I feel all it would take is a single false flag to spark the start of WWIII.
Trump has indicated that he has time for Putin and Putin has reciprocated.
Donald Trump Goes His Own Way With Vladimir Putin
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-goes-his-own-way-with-vladimir-putin-1463172396Vladimir Putin Just Made A MASSIVE Donald Trump Announcement!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/vladimir-putin-just-made-a-massive-donald-trump-announcement/ -
The out of control growth of the greater eurpoean superstate has already resulted in the invasion of the Ukraine and a threat to the Baltic states that has not been topped for decades. Hopefully the out vote will turn that down a notch but if not I see a European war within a decade. Even allowing for the paranoia that is putin, Russia etc have issues with invasion from the west that will be hard to deal with. I just hope that more eastern European nations NOT join the eu. Being blunt now, what is there in the eu worth so much unless poorer nations are hoping for financial bolstering and where did it get Greece? Quite frankly, the german and french financial mismanagement have already created the last crash and are heading for more. Ditch the eu and replace it with a purely trade based organisation. Do we really need a European military without national veto?
-
I am almost in total disagreement with you Mike.
What EU means is much more than trade. I can't see myself not being able to travel freely to spain anymore wich are my neighbours, my friends, my brothers now much more than ever before, when we were truly oponents and enemies for centuries.
I only almost agree with the part where you talk about the french-german mismanagement. It was never a mismanagement but always a very precise management. One where insterests were always being clearly focused...
I fully agree with you that eastern countries should be wiser than to throw themselves into the wolf's lair, but it should be them to weight the pros and cons and know that if they do join EU, they will primarilly benefit EU.
-
@jql said:
What EU means is much more than trade. I can't see myself not being able to travel freely to spain anymore wich are my neighbours, my friends, my brothers now much more than ever before, when we were truly oponents and enemies for centuries.
Do we really need EU for that? We didn't wait for it to travel between countries. Norway and Switzerland are not in the EU but part of the Schengen Space and we can travel to these just like any other place in the EU.
Agreeing for free travel of people, or trade deals, doesn't mean we have to comply to a very un-democratic (borderline authoritarian) beast. The elected parliament is virtually useless. The not-elected commission can bypass it, and has to authorize any decision the parliament takes...
Not to mention the Euro, which is a nonsense to me, but that is actually a separate thing from the EU. -
You are right, free travelling is not all it means.
However I think that it should actually grow in meaning, and we should find ways to change EU itself, rather than throwing it to the trash.
The problem is EU is a also a symbol that holds a powerful idea, it should be harnessed but unfortunatelly europeans citizens are loosing control of it and it seems it has the potential to become a despotic beast greater than any country could be.
I still believe in that fundamental idea of an european union though and I wish we could find ways of building on that.
-
I'm all with you with the symbolic meaning of the EU. Unfortunately, I'm convinced that we cannot change its nature as is. It's too complicated, there are too many barriers.
We can't go back on the treaties, as unanimity is required. All 28 countries have to agree. It's rather easy for the politicians in charge to get new treaties signed, as they are all pretty much on the same page : free market, less social laws, making it easier for multinational corporations, less democracy, etc.
But if the people think one treaty was a mistake, good luck to change that. Our only option is to get out, we can't change the EU from the inside. Not to mention the laws decided by the commission which have to be applied in the countries within a few months/years delay.
Sure, it was advertised with nice ideas and symbols to get people on board, but it was not designed with the people in mind. And surely it was not designed for the people to be able to change it.
The EU is so undemocratic that if it was a country, it could not be accepted in the EU...For me, the EU as it is today is a neoliberal trap (look how Syriza was crushed) from which we should get out asap. This doesn't mean war, this doesn't mean people can't move, this doesn't mean we'll stop trading, this doesn't mean we can't rebuild it better with the people in mind (and not finance).
Now, getting out just for the sake of getting out, without a project in mind, is probably not a good idea right now. Like Brexit which was defended only be the far-right politicians. But I do think an exit from the left is possible.
-
I agree with you on that too Jiminy, and I wish leaving EU would be an answer, but the symbolic blow will probably mean too much, specially now with so many new issues that Europe thought would be erradicated by now.
There's growing fear, growing xenophoby, growing poverty and social unbalance here and these are fundamental ingredients for the greatest calamities possible.
I'm quite certain these were some of the issues that triggered Brexit.
That's why a trade union isn't enough, we need more values that unite us and that's also why I don't look at EU's exodus as a good thing.
-
@jql said:
There's growing fear, growing xenophoby, growing poverty and social unbalance here and these are fundamental ingredients for the greatest calamities possible.
I'm more than convinced that these are products of neoliberalism, and in Europe the EU is by far its best vector.
I'm sure that these issues would vanish by themselves over time if we lived in a more social, democratic, people-driven EU.@jql said:
That's why a trade union isn't enough, we need more values that unite us and that's also why I don't look at EU's exodus as a good thing.
That's why I think we should think about how to build a better EU even before leaving the current one.
-
Our government tried to make the eu change its wasteful ways and become more democratic, less beurocratic and wasteful for years without a single sign of change. The only way the eu will change is if the french and germans (they see themselves as the senior partners with greater say) can be frightened into it. The only reason they were so against brexit was that they saw our money as a way to help attain their goals. Those two nation have more or less togethter destroyed what the eu was supposed to be about, democratic improvement. Take a look at the demonstrations in Germany and france against the way their leaders are bringing more and more poorer people into their nations to bring chaos into the health, housing and financial institutions. The only way to deal with the migrant problem is to make their home nations safer for them. Enable them to live safely in their own homes. Bringing them to Europe, where they have no family et will only make for more far right idiots to feel justified in their actions, costing more innocent lives.
-
They're so sweet...
Interviewer: "If the Americans did move here what would you say?"...
Irish local: "I'd welcome them with open arms of course."
-
@mike lucey said:
(...)I would vote for Trump simply because he is a deal maker more than a war monger.
How would we know that? He's not held any office so far.
We do know, however, 'the Donald' has a strained relationship with the truth, doesn't shy away from racism and misoginy, and holds peculiar views on such staples of democracy like the freedom of press.
Clinton is by no means a saint -but that doesn't change the fact that Trump, quite frankly, is a complete fruitcake, who holds a worldview not unlike that of an egotistical ten-year-old.
-
@stinkie said:
@mike lucey said:
(...)I would vote for Trump simply because he is a deal maker more than a war monger.
How would we know that? He's not held any office so far.
We do know, however, 'the Donald' has a strained relationship with the truth, doesn't shy away from racism and misoginy, and holds peculiar views on such staples of democracy like the freedom of press.
Clinton is by no means a saint -but that doesn't change the fact that Trump, quite frankly, is a complete fruitcake, who holds a worldview not unlike that of an egotistical ten-year-old.
Not mentioning his hair. Nothing pouring from that mind is right, not even his hair!
-
I really hope in the voting box people see past their reluctance for Hillary and see she has a ton of experience for the job where the other candidate totally has not. We don't need another cowboy in charge of a super power.
-
@stinkie said:
@mike lucey said:
(...)I would vote for Trump simply because he is a deal maker more than a war monger.
How would we know that? He's not held any office so far.
We do know, however, 'the Donald' has a strained relationship with the truth, doesn't shy away from racism and misoginy, and holds peculiar views on such staples of democracy like the freedom of press.
Clinton is by no means a saint -but that doesn't change the fact that Trump, quite frankly, is a complete fruitcake, who holds a worldview not unlike that of an egotistical ten-year-old.
I don't know that he is not a potential war monger but I was impressed with his statements about his willingness to talk to the various opposition heads of state around the World.
I pity USA voters if the choice will be between Trump or Clinton. Then again they have not had much choice in quite a while. I think I would have to go back to JFK and he only scraped in also his policies were not tolerated by 'the powers that be'.
Its much the same the world over. It seems to me that 'the powers that be' decide what the electorates choice will be from and they don't really care which candidate is elected as they will either control them or eliminate them.
Personally I'm for more Direct Democracy https://www.google.co.nz/search?client=opera%26amp;q=Direct+Democracy%26amp;sourceid=opera%26amp;ie=UTF-8%26amp;oe=UTF-8 which frightens the crap out of 'the powers that be'. With it they loose control and this is their aim at any cost even their own ultimate demise.
With today's instant communication methods I see no reason for us to give the reins of a country to anyone for 5 years to do as they wish.
-
@kaas said:
I really hope in the voting box people see past their reluctance for Hillary and see she has a ton of experience for the job where the other candidate totally has not. We don't need another cowboy in charge of a super power.
Like I said, I pity the USA electorate's choice between what appears to be a proven liar (knowingly or not) or a so called 'cowboy'. At least with the 'cowboy' they would know that he may not be fully 'bought and paid for'. Yes, its a case of 'the devil and the deep blue sea' I'm afraid.
-
-
-
I highly recommend listening to Chris Hedges: The Algebra of Revolution http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/15/chris-hedges-the-algebra-of-revolution/
Its eye opening, thought provoking and even anger producing to say the least.
Advertisement