This Election Isn't Democrats vs Republicans, It's Globalists vs Nationalists

[Jack V Savage]

The parties tend to align when it comes to free trade deals because free trade deals are better for us. The parties also align for public education and roads. That's usually a decent sign that the benefits outweigh the negatives.

Absolutely.

And to provide some background for this discussion:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...pporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/

Americans as a whole, and especially Democrats, favor free trade.

 

[SafeSpace]

0% chance the world accepts globalism...

 

[Ruprecht]

0% chance the world accepts globalism...

The internet seems rather popular actually.

 

[Squarechoke]

This is not a good comparison because most of these countries are small and racially homogeneous.

I don't think that's the issue. For example, Spain is pretty large and has more ethnic diversity than the US, yet it has about 18% of the US homicide rate.

And above that point I wasn't the one making the comparison, I just pointed out that someone that did compare made an erroneous statement.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Allow me to explain how that makes zero sense.

Nothing about globalization requires you give up sovereignty or individual freedoms. For example - before we had states, people interacted with the world and traveled. They traded and had freedoms. Then they created "States". They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty. Then they put a centralized government on top of it. They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty.

As history as unfolded, people have always gone from small units to larger ones. PRetedning otherwise is basically pretending history didn't happen. What was Rome but globlaization? What was the British Empire but globalization? Where did China come from if not from their attempts at globalization.

So you equate "globalism" with "empire building" and furthermore you think that will pose no threats to collective sovereignty and individual freedoms of people and nations throughout the world? Wtf.

The empires you refer to became empires by restricting collective sovereignty and individual freedoms. People got those things back by rejecting/fighting off the globalizing efforts of those empires or simply had to wait for them to crash.

The current push for globalism is one where nation states become increasingly dependent, less free, and less able to make decisions for themselves. The end result is a one world government and complete and total centralized planning. That's what Brexit was about. That is why the powers that be are fighting so hard to keep borders open in so many western countries. And that is why they are unloading on Trump with everything they've got.

It is the nation state that preserves freedom. The more centeralized and far reaching a government becomes the better suited they are to dictate and dominate others ie less sovereignty and less freedom.

But ya know...none of that is at play here. No legitimate concerns at all. It's just a bunch of people who are afraid of traveling and working with others.

The only people pretending are those who pretend that there's some reason to prevent humanity from travelling, communicating and working together as efficiently as possible.

Those people don't exist Pan

 

[The Diplomat]

If people can't defend themselves, what do you think is going to happen?


"To disarm the people...is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

Look at you, going for the small fish. It's easy to be right when your adversary is a caricature of buffoonery.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Nothing about globalization requires you give up sovereignty or individual freedoms. For example - before we had states, people interacted with the world and traveled. They traded and had freedoms. Then they created "States". They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty. Then they put a centralized government on top of it. They maintained individual freedoms and sovereignty.

Using the United States as an example, establishing the federal government has made no difference in terms of state sovereignty? Seems to me the people of each state are far less free to enact their own laws than they used to be.

 

[chardog]

The US should Join the EU if we are to vote for Hilldog. I mean, might as well right? Fill the brexit void.

Independence day? bah scrap it, it's old news.

 

[The Diplomat]

Absolutely.

And to provide some background for this discussion:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...pporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/

Americans as a whole, and especially Democrats, favor free trade.

I may be wrong, as I have never taken economics and truthfully, mathematics are not my thing. But on a philosophical level, I always figured that free trade is the essence of an open market, just on a global scale. If someone can sell it cheap and make it even cheaper, and businesses buy it for cost and the population buys it up, then it's easier on the individual's pocket books but it's harder on local markets and higher quality goods.

Corporations like Wal-Mart etc. are the big superstores that kill local mom and pop shops (allegedly) and use cheap foreign products, but it is an American company using capitalistic tactics to get things done.

 

[Rod1]

It sounds great in theory, just like communism. When you look at the current globalization models however, you will see that the average citizen has less representation than in a nationalistic democracy, while the corporations have an even larger sphere of influence.

As a citizen and not a corporation, there is very little benefit for me to support such a big brother system.

You can vote better with your wallet the less regulation to trade.

Its funny though how conservatives are championing regulation and non-free trade now.

 

[tramendous]

As everyday passes in this election, this becomes less about Democrats vs Republicans and more about Globalists vs Nationalists.

Globalist platform:

• Open-borders
• Consumerism
• Feminism and matriarchy
• Multiculturalism, diversity, and egalitarianism
• Paganism or atheism
• Global solutions for local problems
• Empire building
• Centralization
• Collectivization
• Unarmed populace

Nationalist platform:

• Closed borders
• Protectionism
• Patriarchy
• Homogeneous population
• Monotheism
• Local solutions for local problems
• War as self-defense
• Decentralization
• Individual rights
• Armed populace

war as 'self defence'

ahahahaha

 

[The Diplomat]

Kind of funny that "Nationalist" sounds like isolationism sprinkled with some liberal ideas (Individual rights, etc.) where as globalism is like imperialism for atheists lol.

 

[BruceLeeOnTRT]

You can vote better with your wallet the less regulation to trade.

Its funny though how conservatives are championing regulation and non-free trade now.

I can vote with my wallet whenever I want, this is nothing new. Each to their own, but if laws are being passed to impact my community, I want them to be passed by politicians who are elected by and accountable to those communities.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Europe...great example buddy. I'm sure places like France, Sweden, Germany, UK, etc are really celebrating their gun control right now.

I'm sure the jews celebrated gun control before they were slaughtered by Nazis


China....USSR...read a history book instead of the HuffPo Black Voices.

You sound like an expert on Europe.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Seems like a fair and balanced argument.

 

[Rod1]

I can vote with my wallet whenever I want, this is nothing new. Each to their own, but if laws are being passed to impact my community, I want them to be passed by politicians who are elected by and accountable to those communities.

So you think your state or your county should secede from the union?

 

[panamaican]

Using the United States as an example, establishing the federal government has made no difference in terms of state sovereignty? Seems to me the people of each state are far less free to enact their own laws than they used to be.

Not at all true.

Most of what people say are encroachments are conditions tied to the reception of federal funds. If states passed on taking federal money, they could pass on many of the requirements. But the states opt to take the money...and the conditions they come with.

 

[panamaican]

So you equate "globalism" with "empire building" and furthermore you think that will pose no threats to collective sovereignty and individual freedoms of people and nations throughout the world? Wtf.

The empires you refer to became empires by restricting collective sovereignty and individual freedoms. People got those things back by rejecting/fighting off the globalizing efforts of those empires or simply had to wait for them to crash.

The current push for globalism is one where nation states become increasingly dependent, less free, and less able to make decisions for themselves. The end result is a one world government and complete and total centralized planning. That's what Brexit was about. That is why the powers that be are fighting so hard to keep borders open in so many western countries. And that is why they are unloading on Trump with everything they've got.

It is the nation state that preserves freedom. The more centeralized and far reaching a government becomes the better suited they are to dictate and dominate others ie less sovereignty and less freedom.

But ya know...none of that is at play here. No legitimate concerns at all. It's just a bunch of people who are afraid of traveling and working with others.



Those people don't exist Pan

I'm amused to that you're saying the problem with globalization is an impact on collective soveriegnty.

Your entire premise is built on a false line of delineation. Empires arise nation states become increasingly dependent, less free, and less able to make decisions for themselves. Yet, isn't an empire simply a larger nation state? Doesn't a nation state arise from individuals becoming increasingly dependent, less free, and less able to make decisions for themselves.

You're basically praising the nation state of one size but not the nation state of another size.

Like I said...you don't make any sense. You should asking for the abolishment of all nation states. Instead you're simply complaining about possible future collaboration between existing nation states. But since when did our existing states become set in stone, impervious to growth and/or evolution?

 

[Contra-dictator]

We get it, you love your family.....

LOL!

 

[TheComebackKid]

I'm amused to that you're saying the problem with globalization is an impact on collective soveriegnty.

Your entire premise is built on a false line of delineation. Empires arise nation states become increasingly dependent, less free, and less able to make decisions for themselves. Yet, isn't an empire simply a larger nation state? Doesn't a nation state arise from individuals becoming increasingly dependent, less free, and less able to make decisions for themselves.

You're basically praising the nation state of one size but not the nation state of another size.

An empire is a group of states...not one single state.

em·pire
ˈemˌpī(ə)r/
noun

1. 1.
   an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress."the Roman Empire"

You were saying?

Like I said...you don't make any sense. You should asking for the abolishment of all nation states. Instead you're simply complaining about possible future collaboration between existing nation states. Should I be for the abolishment of all states within America because I want a limited But since when did our existing states become set in stone, impervious to growth and/or evolution?

There you go again...."future collaboration between existing states" is not what were talking about here. The exact size and layout of different nation states is not what is important. The idea is local planning for local issues...not a one world government.