Opinion Can Trump supporters define globalism and tell me how Trump is fighting it?

As Bernie would say, globalism main tenet is the super wealthy battling to forces of labor. The working man.

Break down borders, so you can ship jobs overseas to workers that will work for nickels, and then ship product back to sell on the sleeves. Trumps trying to tariff those products so jobs are protected. Bernie supports this.

When they can’t ship jobs overseas, the wealthy want to bring illegal immigrants in to work for nickels. Attacking the American worker. Trump is trying to stop this as well. Bernie supports this.


There is a start for you.
But trump made millions on illegal labor at his construction projects, acting like he cares now all of a sudden?
 
I'm no Trump supporter but I have some experience with the European anti-globalists and I can see some parallels.
Globalism is basically open borders, people can migrate freely and so can jobs. Of course, many people do not like this, working class people do not want their jobs shipped overseas and middle class people do not want their neighborhood filled with migrants living on section 8 housing or people with Burkas walking along the streets.
Really, there is nothing nice in walking around in Paris and seeing this:
Migrants-removed-police-La-Petite-Ceinture-France-Paris-Roma-773272.jpg

These people are not going to take my job, I don't even need to work to keep a lower-middle class life to be fair. It's just disgusting. I'm not against all migration, it's great to have exchange students and Indian geniuses, and I guess some hard working people are needed to pick vegetables, but come on.
America doesn't have such a large problem, Latin American migrants are not the same as these boat people. It's just an example of globalism.
Having explained what is globalism and why it's bad, Trump basically said he was going to protect America from that. Of course he didn't because he was just trying to get elected. And that's it.
About the left, many of their policies are actually pretty good, universal healthcare, UBI, a safety net, whatever. They don't come alone though, they support high levels of migration (open borders is a strawman), including for humanitarian reasons, that is, migrants that are not needed or have a very minor effect on the economy.
Well, that's why secular middle class people are against the left and globalism. There are other groups, there are nutjobs (the UN wants to enslave us all), Christian anti-abortionists, and all kind of trash.
For the working class many were on the left but they feel left behind because the jobs moved to China and there is a lot more migrant competition and the left basically said that they should learn how to code or that it's all automation, a lie.
Sure, having better skills is great and robots can do things faster and better not to mention other technologies like strip mining that diminish the need for miners.
The problem is that not everyone can be a software engineer and there are a LOT of factory jobs in places with cheaper wages and lax environmental regulations. Corporations move there to save costs, that makes products cheaper and that's good for the whole but it's very bad for the individual workers.

By the way, in Europe there are left anti-globalist parties but these are not viable in the US due to the two party system.
 
But trump made millions on illegal labor at his construction projects, acting like he cares now all of a sudden?

Actually yes. That’s why he said he ran for president. He said America is being destroyed. He’s right it is.

He said he didn’t need the job and really didn’t want it. That clear as day. He would rather be rich and being an old playboy.

He said he ran out of service. And his platform was awesome.
 
Hit and miss here, mostly miss.

During the 2016 campaign season he certainly preached non-interventionism and opposed deposing Assad. But once president he attacked Assad , once.

How is he trying to deescalate wars when he trashed the Iran nuke agreement, labels the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as terrorists and appoints such Neocon hawks as Bolton and Abrams. How is he trying to deescalate when his admin is taking a Cold War hawkish attitude towards Latin America, specifically Venezuela.

Appointing Bolton as National Sec. adviser and giving Abrams a high ranking position runs contrary to your belief he is trying to deescalate wars. Both these guys are died-in-the-wool interventionists, uber war hawks. Trump criticized the Iraq war before he became President but now he appoints two of the most hawkish ideologues to support the Iraq war to his cabinet.

How is he trying to deescalate wars when he supports Bin Salman and vetoed the US resolution to stop aiding Saudi and Emirati warmongering in Yemen.

How is he deescalating when goes along with what Bibi wants.

The de-escalation of America's wars in the Middle East, and President Trump bringing us closer to a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula than any other president since the Korean War are excellent examples of President Trump attempting to deescalate military conflict.

Your post only pointed out times that President Trump either agreed, or disagreed with someone else's perspective. That's not an escalation by any objective measure.
 
The de-escalation of America's wars in the Middle East, and President Trump bringing us closer to a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula than any other president since the Korean War are excellent examples of President Trump attempting to deescalate military conflict.

Your post only pointed out times that President Trump either agreed, or disagreed with someone else's perspective. That's not an escalation by any objective measure.

I am not seeing how he has brought us closer to peace. The NKs are angry at what Bolton and Pompeo said / saying. Nothing has been accomplished in NK. Kim dismantled some obsolete missile bases but continued to build new missile bases.

My post brought up the appointment of Bolton, Abrams , Trump's anti Iran stance and support for the Yemen war. All of these shows that Trump is not the guy who you think he is. Now add in Pompeo stating God is protecting Israel, and one wonders how such rhetoric is deescalating.

Obama froze the shipment of weapons to Saudi Arabia, because of the Yemen war. Trump lifted this freeze and continues to support Bin Salman. How does this comport with your belief Trump is deescalating the situation?
 
Last edited:
Simple: Globalism is the Saudi-Marxist-Corporate-Jew plot to destroy America, end the white race, outlaw the straight male, and establish global transexual Sharia law.

This is the funniest part: globalism as a movement is or has been inherently capitalistic and socially liberal. Yet the people who fear monger about globalism wring their hands about ultra-conservative social policy (Sharia Law, etc.) and left-wing economic policy (Marxism, etc.).

Basically, at least 90% of people who purport to oppose globalism are morons whose positions are full of contradictions.
 
fighting globalism....by staffing your resorts with undocumented workers.......simple really....
 
A lot wrong with your suppositions.

1. It's making decisions for world at large at the expense of one's own country. This doesn't necessarily mean the only choices are cucking your own country or having an adversarial relationship with every other country. Considerations should be made for your own country first, then allies, then the rest of the world, in that order.
I don't see the erasure of borders and "cucking" your country in the platform of any major democratic politician. People like Bernie Sanders have their focus exclusively on helping the American people.
3. They are not "pro-middle and working class", they are simply anti-business and pro-centralized power. The financial and regulatory demands harm small and medium sized businesses the most, which is why the biggest corporations are in favor of them. The short-term burden for a huge corporation is nothing if it throws extra hurdles behind them and snuffs out future market competition. Fuck do they care when they have the means to either lay people off or move their labor to some shithole?
Sorry my friend but you've got this completely upside down. Democrats mostly don't see themselves in what they're in opposition to, but what they stand for. You might be confusing this with the reactionaries you support, and the reactionary within yourself. Republicans have nothing to stand for, but rather define themselves by what they're against. No democrat is saying "boy I wish we could centralize power, that's really what I'm all about!" They simply want protections for people from predatory business practices, they want healthcare protections for the middle class and poor.
2. His stance of immigration and its limits is to maximize the benefits of immigration while minimizing the drawbacks. Immigration is not supposed to be a favor, it's supposed to be a mutually beneficial move. If a population is a pyramid, as it always is, with unskilled workers as the base with fewer and fewer people of higher skill, immigration should be in opposite measure with mostly higher skill moving down to fewer low skill or unskilled. US and Europe are running their immigration policies like a goddamn international charity funded involuntarily by their own citizens.
So when he's giving billions to support Saudi Arabian genocide in Yemen, that's not globalism? How about when he's giving tax breaks to giant international corporations and billionaires? How's that anti globalist?
BTW - Barack Obama was really hard on immigration. Would you say Obama was an anti-globalist?
 
"The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods...with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State"

Pope Benedict on Globalization:

"Global interconnectedness has led to the emergence of a new political power, that of consumers and their associations. It is good for people to realize that purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act."

"Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also take responsibility."

The complete encyclical on globalization:

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
CARITAS IN VERITATE


"The technical forces in play, the global interrelations, the damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and largely speculative financial dealing, large-scale migration of peoples, often provoked by some particular circumstance and then given insufficient attention, the unregulated exploitation of the earth's resources: all this leads us today to reflect on the measures that would be necessary to provide a solution to problems that are not only new in comparison to those addressed by Pope Paul VI, but also, and above all, of decisive impact upon the present and future good of humanity."

The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating the rate of development in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State.

220px-Benedykt_XVI_%282010-10-17%29_2.jpg
You seem to notice that the drive for globalism is inherently driven by corporations and corporate greed. Do you think we can get @phoenixikki to have this realization as well? Or is he simply liking your post because he thinks it may be adversarial to me? How are we going to fight globalism while continuing to incentivize the driving of globalism? How is giving trillions in tax breaks to multi national corporations going to slow globalism? How is weakening the middle class going to fight globalism?
 
You seem to notice that the drive for globalism is inherently driven by corporations and corporate greed. Do you think we can get @phoenixikki to have this realization as well? Or is he simply liking your post because he thinks it may be adversarial to me? How are we going to fight globalism while continuing to incentivize the driving of globalism? How is giving trillions in tax breaks to multi national corporations going to slow globalism? How is weakening the middle class going to fight globalism?

It is not so simple to disentangle corporate motive (or private wealth more broadly) with government. The EU for example is a corporate driven thing. As are international governing bodies in general, typically. The Oligarchy types are the ones who back these projects.

It ends up with an Oligarchy at the top, influencing a large centralized power structure that is government (international governance if we're talking globalism).

The logical conclusion is global power consolidation and that can only really be accomplished by establishing globalized government structures.
 
Globalism is a made up boogie man so the alt right tards have something to cry about.
 
The financial and regulatory demands harm small and medium sized businesses the most, which is why the biggest corporations are in favor of them. The short-term burden for a huge corporation is nothing if it throws extra hurdles behind them and snuffs out future market competition.

While there is a lot of silly things in this post, this sticks out as the most asinine and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporations work and how their incentives are structured. Firms are driven by quarterly profit improvements, not retention of market share or hedging profits decades down the road. A Director or Officer reports to shareholders on the basis of earnings, not market share. They are not going to pass up the opportunity to report 12% profit growth instead of 6%, because that difference will radically increase share prices and likely trigger addition non-equity bonuses. Likewise, an oligopoly would not continue to insist upon regulations that reduce their profits and constrict the market just to keep new entrants out. That's just stupid. It makes no sense.

@Jack V Savage has, I think, posted an article making fun of this right-libertarian Greorician talking point.
 
Globalism is a made up boogie man so the alt right tards have something to cry about.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying globalism isn't a real thing, or that any concerns about it aren't justified?
 
The people who buy into the globalist ct are such autist

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate....ow-says-hes-a-nationalist-and-a-globalist.amp

Mr. Trump dismissed talk about a split inside his White House between aides with a nationalist or globalist orientation. “Hey, I’m a nationalist and a globalist,” he said. “I’m both. And I’m the only one who makes the decision, believe me.”

<36>

What the right is against is liberalism, which is seen as a form of globalism. Liberalism, social liberal policies, denial of biological determinism (race, biology, ´´racist science´´ as you may call it, and gender realism etc. Wikipedia below has a quick thing on it, and the similarities to the major religions which are all theologically and ideologically in favor of traditionalism makes their case known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School


China is a perfect example of a NATIONALIST and Globalist country at the same time. China is an ethno state, and ´´traditionalist´´ state. Yet it plays the capitalist game well externally outside of china, and in other countries by utilizing Chinese investment strategies and rich chinese business men. China has integrated itself as an indispensable asset to the global economy for smooth transactions, HOWEVER they have not changed their laws and nationalist outlook. A westerner can work in china but will never be a citizen, hold political power, have a recognized marriage really, or hold media influence. Not to mention the immigration of outsiders is limited as is their degree of mobility. In this sense, china represents I think what many on the right wing want.
 
While there is a lot of silly things in this post, this sticks out as the most asinine and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporations work and how their incentives are structured. Firms are driven by quarterly profit improvements, not retention of market share or hedging profits decades down the road. A Director or Officer reports to shareholders on the basis of earnings, not market share. They are not going to pass up the opportunity to report 12% profit growth instead of 6%, because that difference will radically increase share prices and likely trigger addition non-equity bonuses. Likewise, an oligopoly would not continue to insist upon regulations that reduce their profits and constrict the market just to keep new entrants out. That's just stupid. It makes no sense.

@Jack V Savage has, I think, posted an article making fun of this right-libertarian Greorician talking point.
Ah, so higher market share = less profit. Brilliant point. It obviously wouldn't increase profits as much ss doubling their payroll expenses, which clearly why they donate heavily to democrats
 
What the right is against is liberalism, which is seen as a form of globalism. Liberalism, social liberal policies, denial of biological determinism (race, biology, ´´racist science´´ as you may call it, and gender realism etc. Wikipedia below has a quick thing on it, and the similarities to the major religions which are all theologically and ideologically in favor of traditionalism makes their case known.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_School


China is a perfect example of a NATIONALIST and Globalist country at the same time. China is an ethno state, and ´´traditionalist´´ state. Yet it plays the capitalist game well externally outside of china, and in other countries by utilizing Chinese investment strategies and rich chinese business men. China has integrated itself as an indispensable asset to the global economy for smooth transactions, HOWEVER they have not changed their laws and nationalist outlook. A westerner can work in china but will never be a citizen, hold political power, have a recognized marriage really, or hold media influence. Not to mention the immigration of outsiders is limited as is their degree of mobility. In this sense, china represents I think what many on the right wing want.
Agree mostly with what you said. As you say many on the right admire and wish the US, Western Europe, Canada , Aus and NZ could be like China , Israel, Japan, South Korea. Namely ethnostates that first and foremost are concerned with the existential dominance and power of their respective ethnic / racial group.

The right, not just here, but really everywhere is concerned with in-group and out-group dynamics and preserving the power of the in-group. It is no coincidence that Conservatives and the Right essentially overlap because Conservatives want to conserve the existing power structure.
 
Ah, so higher market share = less profit. Brilliant point. It obviously wouldn't increase profits as much ss doubling their payroll expenses, which clearly why they donate heavily to democrats

Higher market share of a smaller market with exponentially higher compliance costs = less profits, yes. Directors get no value out of shrinking short term profits for the sake of hedging the profits of future directors. Or, more succinctly, hedged market share =/= maximum short-term profits. Again, you clearly just don't understand how corporations are formed and how they operate. Maybe, MAYBE a business owned singularly by its founder could operate under that logic, but even that is a huge leap.

Also, besides the irrelevance of the point since you probably realize your original claim was idiotic, who is the "they" that donates heavily to Democrats? Republicans' campaign fundraising is much, much more highly made up of institutional donors than Democrats'.
 
Based TS is putting conservative brainlets in their place. Their continued support of being raped by large corporations is unreal
Right, because large corporations are against globalism. <mma4><{1-1}>
 
Back
Top