ameer

I guess it's hard to understand what drives them if you don't experience their insecurities and their need for attention and confirmation. It all comes out of that. The detachment that the internet provides really brings out the worst in people. They say and do things they would never in real life. No respect, act like jerks, lie etc because they feel there are no consequences. This same detachment causes them to act in the way SaiY did, it's just another form of disrespect, she insulted our intelligence by the way she acted. Everything stank from the way she introduced herself to the way she handled herself when under scrutiny. You can smell their fear and insecurities even over the internet as many did, and spoke out in the original thread. That said I tend to agree with Fortis about protecting them from themselves, and that there's no need to cause permanent damage to their reputations. In today's world 30 is the new 20, and that's true as far as maturity is concerned as well. Judging even by the offtopic discussion in this thread about relationships and commitment and how people aren't really into that sort of stuff anymore, until later in life when they 'settle down', you can see this is true. I guess younger generations are far less mature for their respective ages than previous generations were. I'm 33 and notice this stuff around me as well, and I don't consider myself a paragon of maturity either... When my parents were 33... hell when they were 23 they had two kids and a life together. When I was 23 I was a complete idiot, that couldn't take care of himself, much less a wife and two kids. It is what it is... the world has changed, rather than just dismissing and looking down on younger people perhaps a more constructive approach is in order.

Let's be clear, second party with 13% of the votes, with 81% voter turnout, so the representation is pretty accurate, no 'silent majorities' waiting for the right leader to come along and solve all their problems. Hardly game changing or a political force seeing as no other party supports him or agrees with his world view. The dude's got nothing else to say except anti EU and anti immigrant slogans. When you say second largest it sounds like a big deal, and that he enjoys broad support, when in reality it's not the case. In the US the second largest is a big deal, you've only got 2 parties.

Really? The Kremlin English language mouthpiece you find in the middle? It's not only biased towards whatever the Russians want you to believe but it sometimes goes to ridiculous lengths to create stories either by gross misinterpretation of facts or outright lies. Nothing to do with that, it's about the US requiring visas of some EU countries. The EU has a legal obligation to act on this issue. It's non binding so I wouldn't worry too much, it's doubtful Americans would require visas anytime soon, this has been discussed for years now, nothing new.

They already have. Not only Syria but Iraq as well, it will take generations to rebuild their societies unless people go back. The thing is the educated, skilled, wealthy etc, do not have 'refugee' status. When SHTF they simply applied for jobs elsewhere, and left, they didn't go as refugees but as emigrants. There are millions of Syrians and Iraqis in the Gulf countries, they aren't there as refugees but as legal immigrants who applied for jobs and got them. THe ones not educated enough, or not wealthy enough who couldn't make arrangements legally are the ones you see crossing the Med by boat or traveling on foot. They sent the masses to the West, and kept the elite for themselves. Very few in the media or politics realized this issue. An example: http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-prev...ving-migration/ I also know this from personal experience, my dad's company also operates in southern Iraq, which is relatively calm and peaceful compared to the rest of it, the only people he can recruit locally are ditch diggers, cleaners, and drivers. He has to bring in welders and other skilled (but not necessarily highly educated) workers from Pakistan, China or Turkey at obviously far higher costs. Out of around 15 engineers who work full time only 1 is local in a country which used to have a huge base of skilled people for the oil industry. They've all left, many of them long ago, and most don't want to go back.

Oh! Thought it was an abbreviation for an area around LA, and was wondering what it was since I hadn't encountered it.

What does BFE stand for?

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Ferrari stretch it's platforms too? As far as I know 360/430 were built on the same platform, albeit modified for the 430, 458/488 same situation. They get 2 model cycles out of a platform. They develop one and tweak it for the next model. Only difference is, Lambo "facelifts" versus Ferrari which does a redesign based on the same underpinnings and markets it as a new car. Bentley does it too, current CGT still runs on the same platform the 2003 one did. That's 14 years out of a platform, keeping it relevant this long is truly impressive.

If that's his train of thought and he's such a Machiavellian and indeed ends up banning Saudis I'll donate 1000 dollars to a charity of your choice and admit Trump is far more able and intelligent than I or anyone else give him credit for. If he doesn't, will you admit it was a pointless, populist exercise in PR to satisfy the dimwitted masses, and that you perhaps read a bit too much into his actions? You may be one step ahead but I'm sure as hell he isn't. The rest is bullshit I agree, trying to delegitimize the president after lawfully winning an election is not only destabilizing but wrong. It was the people's choice, live with it, otherwise just vote a president for life and be done with it, why complicate things with elections and such? They're idiots, my facebook feed is teeming with anti Trump articles, can't stand them anymore, so much bullshit in Euro press, left and right. At least they've found some common ground now.

The Aventador S looks better in other colors, I like the styling but that front bumper still doesn't do it for me. Perhaps I need to see it in the metal to better judge it. As for the Bentley that mustache they put on it's front looks weird. I prefer the previous iteration.

Import ban, no. Thorough vetting yes. Skilled, intelligent and educated people who wish to live in the west, contribute and integrate yes, stupid uneducated people who come to mooch off others and don't respect our cultures and don't make an effort to integrate into mainstream society, no. Melting pot welcome, multiculturalism is not. Welfare? Long term absolutely not. Short term yes. Anyone can loose a job, get downsized, go bust or whatever. We are civilized people, we have certain moral values and we help each other out in dire times, but abuse of this goodwill must not be tolerated.

I understand the reasoning behind the restrictions, and I don't see a problem with vetting people who come in, but why only those and not more countries? I mean why not Saudi? After all, most 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals. These vetting protocols should be directed at all countries who pose a risk. Is there currently a different process for the countries mentioned in the moratorium than for others? The only reason I can think of for not applying this to Saudis as well is that they have a rather functional intelligence service that cooperates with the US and provides information on their citizens. But does Afghanistan have the same? I doubt it. As far as I understand it's not only about refugees, visa holders are affected too.

How come Trump didn't include Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia on the list of countries that he banned immigration from? Also Tunisia has the highest number of jihadists fighting for isis in the middle east. Last I checked saudis inflicted the most pain on the US through terrorism. It seems suspect that he didn't. If he really wanted to keep his word on banning people from high risk countries, Saudi Arabia would be top of the list no? Perhaps he just wants to give the appearance of keeping his word without really being serious about it. Or is there extreme vetting already in place for Saudis in some way?

Just curious on your stance on Mexico. If Trump renegotiates NAFTA, and this ends up hurting the Mexican economy won't it cause even more illegal immigration to the US? Wall and all, they might find a different route if they're desperate enough.

Nobody anywhere will listen to anyone. We're all yelling past each other these days, debates, arguments, facts are a thing of the past. If someone has an opinion, it's gospel to him, and doesn't want to hear anything contradictory no matter what. Sad times.

Loved how this guy defended Trump in the middle of the protesters. https://youtu.be/IPqrimR8GWw

Yeah sorry about that it's just that communicating in this way in a meaningful manner requires a bit more detailing than a casual conversation and considering the way above average level of the audience and discussion I feel compelled to step up, small talk is not something I enjoy engaging in. I learned a lot on here over the years, and I'm just trying to return the favor for those interested. I'll try to be more concise and to the point, though. 1. Of course they do. It's not that big of a deal, idk the average but I'm guessing they now spend an average of 1.5-1.7 % of GDP. Nato agreements require a minimum of 2%, the US spends 3.8% or so, it can be done without too much pain. But why do it when the US offers to foot the bill? 2&3. EU army on the cards, Brits have always been against it and even after their Brexit vote they still threatened to veto it. As far as this issue is concerned good riddance UK! They're a nuisance. Talks on this issue have been restarted and will proceed once the UK goes. I support this and think it is a great idea, it will also make it easier for the US to pressure EU countries to step up spending on military which I also support. An EU military with a central command will make it a lot easier to defend borders, which is a point that has been insisted on by many countries. The burden won't fall only on Greece, Italy and other border countries, which is fair. 4. Wasn't done properly, was severely limited, and had a different purpose than proper military integration, the ongoing discussions start from a different premise, it will be done right this time around. After economic integration, military is the next logical step. 5&6. We've got nukes too. Russia is unable to sustain a large scale conflict for too long, please understand Russia is not as powerful as it seems, or as it wants others to think, lots of smoke and mirrors amplify the perception, but objectively it's not the case. They also depend heavily on oil&gas exports to the EU, and also depend on food imports they can't afford to kill the golden goose, gas prices are now quite low compared to past years to keep Euro countries from investing in shale gas production. Poland&Romania have enough shale gas reserves to sustain EU consumption for at least 100 years, just not viable at current prices but if SHTF the situation can be addressed. The US is also gearing up for gas exports, why buy from them and empower a rival and potential enemy when we can buy from you, who are our cousins, friends and allies? They know this too. I'm not trying to defend Greece, if it sounded like that, it wasn't my intention, just trying to show you all sides of the argument. GM sold Saab, and Volvo belonged to Ford which it also sold. They now belong to Chinese companies, Volvo is going through a renaissance of sorts these days, Saab not so much but I understand they will be repositioned as an exclusively electric vehicle manufacturer to rival Tesla. Chevrolet sold cars in Europe, up until 2013, but they were in fact rebadged Daewoos (which is a south Korean manufacturer that is owned by GM). They were absolute rubbish, (just search for Chevrolet Nubira or Spark and you will see what I mean) which is why they withdrew from Europe. They are still sold in Russia though. American Chevrolets that are officially sold in Europe are the Camaro and Corvette, and they sell quite well, but the SUVs and trucks are simply not good enough to perform in this market, and are only available as grey imports with little to no dealer support. Cadillac is a boutique brand, and imo their products are good enough to compete but they are not adapted to EU markets. No diesel engines, very small dealer network, and GM seems generally uninterested in promoting Cadillac over here, which is a shame imo. They seem to be content with their boutique brand status and eccentric customer base. Fiat-Chrysler sells the Jeep Grand Cherokee and it's a bit hit, dealers can't keep them on the lots. Great value for money, diesel engine, big dealer network because they are serviced by Fiat dealers and I understand more cars are to be developed and sold under FCA brands. If they build good cars they will sell them, there is no bias against American cars, just competition.

What is long term to you? Long term in business is 10-20 years perhaps? When statehood is involved long term is a longer time frame than that. Greece's problems stem from the huge burden of their debt, their economy has suffered in the past years but in 2008, which was their best year they were actually dead on the EU average for GDP/capita. Another thing, remember I said they have one of the largest and best equipped navies in the Med? Guess where they bought all that stuff from? Most of it comes from Germany and Netherlands, paid for with borrowed German and Dutch cash, sure they spent some of it on showering voters with freebies but not only that. Much of those hundreds of billions went straight back into the German economy. That same cutting edge navy patrols the Med and deals with the brunt of the refugee crisis which has been weighing them down even further, they have not gotten the support they rightly deserve from the rest of the EU. They have a tax dodging problem, and people dodge taxes because they are way too high, and the IMF and other lenders have imposed crippling conditions on them. My opinion of the IMF is appaling, my country kicked them out long time ago because they were vehemently opposed to us lowering taxes and generally relaxing the fiscal burden. Guess what? After we kicked them out, we slashed taxes the economy boomed, in 2009 we borrowed money from them again (it wasn't really needed but we did it anyway) to keep the country afloat, but this time on our terms. Greece did not have such leverage. Their high taxes are causing businesses to relocate, and professionals to emigrate. There is nothing inherently wrong with Greece, just policy. The conditions imposed on them have made people vote for a populist idiotic party which is far right on social issues and far left on economic policy. They've become pretty unpopular but it takes some time for a country which was thrown off the gravy train so suddenly to find their footing. No country can get rich overnight, save for perhaps finding a massive oil deposit somewhere. After WW2 Greece was one of the poorest countries in Europe, it slowly became a middle income country, after they got into the EU they slowly became a high income country. How does that not count as progress over the past 60 years? The military juntas that ruled Greece in the 70s did them no favors in terms of economic development but they were needed and supported by the West, the US included, to counter communism which had an alarmingly high following in Greece. There are still outlawed extreme left organizations that have even planted bombs from time to time. They are now back to being a middle to high income country. It's a step back but they will rebound, I'm sure of that. Greeks are smart folks they will figure it out eventually. After that you need to understand eastern culture, Americans have the Protestant work ethic instilled in them and think everyone should be the same, but unfortunately it's not the case, in Greece people work to live not live to work, and it's also a rather resource poor country, the only abundant resource they have is sunshine. It's just the way it is. Greece will never be as rich as America or Germany, but it should do fine and fit neatly into the first world. And I don't mean to sound condescending or anything but you guys over there are really disconnected from what goes on over here, (and its pretty much the same for us) and it's not even your fault. In a country as large as America it is expected and normal for its population to be American centric, sure you get world news and stuff, but there's so much going on over there it would be next to impossible to follow everything unless you do this for a living or are extremely eager to learn or understand what goes on over here. This results in rather superficial coverage of issues in other parts of the world. No one's going to watch the news for 5 hours daily to stay informed with what goes on everywhere. There is also a trend among right wing political pundits to be anti EU and criticize it and talk about how 'undemocratic' it is which is really intellectually false. I am conservative myself and honestly truly despise socialists in general, but don't believe everything you read and inform yourself, don't take everything for granted just because its written on you favourite political blog. Anyone saying the EU is undemocratic only needs to read about how it functions and what it can do, and will see its a really tall order to call it undemocratic. It has its flaws but nothing is really perfect is it? There is not one country in the EU that has not had a net benefit from belonging. No country can say that they were fucked over by the EU and that it hasn't worked for them. It has, for everyone, the UK included. The reasons for the UK leaving are different. They were concerned about immigration from the EU. Apparently that was their main gripe, because they had the freedom to restrict immigration from outside the EU but it seems people from the EU bothered them the most, not the bomb planting ones from outside the EU. The EU even works for America. American companies that operate in one country can operate everywhere else freely. Ford, GM, build cars in Germany, Belgium, UK and sell them all over freely, and plenty more industries and American companies do business inside the EU. Trump just said he sees plenty of Mercedeses in Manhattan but not that many Chevys in Berlin, this to him means trade between the EU and the US is a one way street. That's false and dishonest. Ford is a major manufacturer that sells a lot of cars, they have a big market share, and build exceptional products in their respective price ranges and segments, so is GM through their European brands like Opel or Vauxhall. BMW and MB have some of their largest production facilities in the USA. In fact the USA is second only to Germany in terms of MB and BMW production. We even import the SUVs from the US because both MB and BMW build their SUVs exclusively in the USA. The X5 I just leased is built in Spartanburg SC. Let me give you another example. Ireland. When Ireland joined in the 70s they were the poorest country in the EU, today it is one of the richest most successful countries in the EU. It has a GDP/capita higher than the UK, Germany or France. It is an economic tiger with some of the lowest taxes in the EU and they too had debt issues. They've wanted to join since the 60s but weren't allowed to. Their economy was undeveloped mostly focused on agriculture and was plagued by mass unemployment and as recently as 80s 1/3 of their population lived below the poverty line. They had 7.8% economic growth in 2015, just a few years before they were hit hard by the debt crisis and everyone was worried. We should have kicked them out by that reasoning... no? Looking at the big picture they should have been a disaster.

The issues are a lot more complex than that with Greece. Greeks might not be pulling their weight economically for now, but they do punch above their weight in other areas. For example as tiny as Greece is, it has one of the largest and best equipped navies in the Mediterranean, it also is a very big contributor to border security. Despite their woes, Greece is the second biggest contributor to NATO after the US in terms of GDP spent, and it is also bearing the brunt of the refugee influx. Greece isn't a lost cause, things can be fixed, but no complex problem can be fixed easily, it takes time. The game is played long term, you can't just "cut the excess fat" the moment you run into some trouble. The EU isn't an opportunistic spur of the moment kind of thing. It is crucial for European security, economic development and so on. Also the talk of the dissolution of the EU severely underestimates the political will behind it, despite the Brits changing course, the EU is pretty popular on the continent, even more so after the Brexit vote. Sure there are detractors, and opinions will vary but the consensus is that despite its shortcomings it is better with it than without it. Its shortcomings can be addressed and there's a new push for reform after Brexit. Even the UK has benefited loads from the EU, it even helped pacify Northern Ireland after the bloody conflict with the UK. Trump has positioned the EU as an adversary, he says it was set up as an opponent to the US, he thinks of the EU as a rival and not a partner. That's just wrong on so many levels, that's why I was shocked when I saw him directly undermine the EU and bash Germany with his comments. It was set up to bring peace to Europe once and for all, it was set up so that Americans don't have to intervene again in another major war, and it was supported and encouraged by the US and for the most part it has achieved its goals. He's saying this stuff while making overtures to Russia. I think he's a bit confused about who really are his friends and allies. And to say all this and how the EU won't work because of the refugee crisis which his moronic predecessor had a big hand in provoking with his irresponsible interventionism. This isn't "ballsy" or saying it how it is, it's impudence. And I actually support his stance on NATO somewhat, I think Euro countries should pick up the slack and spend not the minimum 2% of GDP (many don't even spend that) but even increase that to 2.5-3% of GDP. The Cold War is over, European nations have recovered after the losses of WW2, there are no excuses to rely on the US for security anymore, and considering the current state of affairs this is a big opportunity to become more assertive and take more responsibility for defense. I think it's irresponsible of us to rely on the US for much longer, aside from it being unfair to the US. And of course a shift in defense policy will have to come at the expense of American influence on the continent, though such a shift, might in fact turn this partnership into a rivalry, which is why NATO has to be supported and committed to by all the sides involved.

Why? Plenty of countries doing just fine even though their economies and gdp/capita are far lower than Germany's? Only argument in favor of them not sharing a currency is simply to devalue their own currency in order to reduce the debt burden. But is that really the right thing to do? No one forced their politicians to borrow money to shower voters with freebies in order to get elected.... They loved spending it, but they hate giving it back. A lot of their debt has already been written off, how much more is necessary to satisfy everyone? Their economy was booming back in the 2000s, the common currency was good then, why isn't it now? On the contrary I think it might actually hurt them more, no one's going to lend Greece money when their currency is going down the drain, and interest rates would be unbearable. Their cretinous populist politicians are even worse than the irresponsible ones before them. They got a good deal, 100 billion of debt was written off, they even refused another deal because they thought more debt should be written off, and the proceeded to blame all their problems on the Germans. How is that fair? I wonder if they leave the Euro how many of you will be standing in line to lend Greece money in their brand new shiny currency, because everyone realized that Greece and Germany can not share a currency so they 'fixed' the problem. Hmm... No one likes a deadbeat.

The EU is not some mutual savings scheme, but I can't detail all the functions on here, it would bore everyone to death, look it up, plenty of info available, EU is a a bit like a federal government in the US but with a lot less power and quite different functions. Germany is important because it is the largest country in terms of population and has biggest economy in absolute value, per capita there are richer countries, many in fact. Think about it in terms of how American states are, NY or California ofc have more importance than Idaho or Montana, but that doesn't mean they're weighing down the country simply because in absolute value they have a lower GDP. In terms of Greece's woes, Greece has 10 million of the 450 million people in the EU. Greece's problems aren't as big as they're made out to be in the grand scheme of things. Spain has been doing a lot better lately, and for the past 2 years the economy has been recovering at an accelerating pace, high unemployment is still an issue (especially among young people) but they're not in a position of requiring major bailouts or anything. It's a tall order to consider the negative effects of Greece's economy as a counterweight to Germany.

Trump just gave his first interview to European press. In it, among other things he said that other countries in the EU should follow the UK's lead and leave it as it's the "smart" thing to do. While the UK's decision to leave is a matter of the British people's choice, encouraging others to do so at this point in time, is in my view a way to deliberately undermine the EU. He blamed the refugee crisis for the Brexit result and thinks that had the refugee crisis not happened things would have been different and the EU could have worked. His predecessor, that fuckwit, Obama, had a big hand in encouraging the disaster in Syria by arming the numerous different factions he liked and caused an all out civil war for no reason other than Assad not being a dictator that's on the US's good side. In turn, the civil war caused the refugee crisis that we all have to deal with now. Not blaming only Obama for it as all major powers had a hand in the disaster. Then Trump comes along, who now seems to me even more naive about history, and says the above without understanding the EU has worked for many decades now, not only that but it is the underlying political construct that virtually guaranteed peace (economic peace) in Europe and helped and influenced the transition to full fledged democracy of eastern European states. Without the EU it would have been nigh impossible in just one generation or perhaps not at all. Undermining such an important and influential political construct is down right irresponsible. Especially now when unity in action and policy is needed more than ever. This sort of bullshit is only in the interest of ONE country. Russia. If you guys haven't really understood Putin's long term goal let me spell it out in an oversimplified way. Basically the Russians know that in their current political system they will never be able to reach the sort of development and prosperity that exists in the West, nor the clout or influence that brings. So the only way for them to prevail against the West is to drag us all down to their level. How to best do that? Create disunity, turn everyone against everyone, divide and conquer. Have you guys never heard Putin's rhetoric of a multi polar world? It is the major pillar of their foreign policy! Why do they want multiple pillars of influence? More voices, more disunity? Because that way we won't ever agree on anything and they, by virtue of the intrinsic superpower status that their country has (because of size, population, nuclear arsenal and resources) can in fact gain more influence and get a seat at every table. They can never stand up to a united western block. Why do they support every fringe weirdo movement that can further their goals (if it's not in Russia of course)? Even in the USA they support secessionist movements especially in Texas and now even in California. The Russians say it constantly, they don't hide it. The West won the last Cold War and will win the next one too. If it's us against them, we, the west, will always prevail. But when it's everyone against everyone in Putin's multi-polar world with multi-vector policies (and that's a quote that is oft repeated by Putin and Russian officials), basically a state of permanent instability and shifting alliances, they might actually stand a chance, because of their small central command structure that is for the most part uncountable for any of its actions. They pursue this multi-polar world not because they believe it is the right thing to do but because it is the only world in which they matter without unleashing nuclear hell. I had my reservations regarding Trump, but I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's too early to judge him imo, and it would be unfair to do so, but he started off on the wrong foot at least as far as Europe is concerned. He also said that he'd start by trusting Putin and giving him the benefit of the doubt. Imo that is naive and irresponsible. The Russians are not benign in the slightest, they are bitter and resentful of the West, loosing an ideological war on the scale that they did is absolutely devastating for a society, this has happened time and time again in history we have examples in the past. Dealing fairly is one thing, trusting blindly is dangerous and can have disastrous consequences. If you want to get a bit more insight into the Russian view of the world, I suggest reading Foundations of Geopolitics by Alexander Dugin, this book is mandatory reading for all Russians in high level military, security services and politics. It's not what you expect, as it has it's share of borderline conspiracies etc in it, but the ideas expressed in the book of how Russia should move forward are the backbone of Russian policy in the 21st century. So don't discount it easily. The "multi polar world with multi vector policies" that the Russians try to encourage and create everywhere has its origins in the set of ideas expressed in that book.

In the home of the deadliest snakes and spiders on the planet, perhaps you were lucky

This is why I love temperate climates! No nasty stuff! Plus, nicer weather is always a good excuse to travel.

Most likely lone wolf scenario imo. Thing is... The mood in Turkey is very much anti Russian despite official reconciliation and the media says one thing in Turkish and another in English. Same publication could strike a totally different tone when presenting news for turks in Turkish, and another when it translates it to their English language counterpart. Almost dystopian. The times we live in.... In other news, pakistani refugee drove a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin. 12 dead, 50 wounded. RIP

Didn't take it as such