Years ago, we used to debate Supply Side economics, taxing capital gains, the taxation % on the top 1%, war in Iraq, affirmative action, etc.
What are the issues we’re debating today? It seems the issues being debated are in the realm of fantasy as opposed to reality.
Same as always, I’d say. Immigration, nationalism/trade, foreign intervention, healthcare, top tax brackets.
Nope all of Yesterdays issues are sub issues now. This is why nobody understands about mega
Today’s issues are:
Nationalism versus globalism
Illegal immigration/border security
Individual liberties versus police state
Government overreach into our private lives
Wokism vs MAGA
I could rattle off 10 more but this is exactly the reason why you guys don’t seem to understand where we’re coming from
Good stuff. So, I’ve been talking to a few around me about these today. I’ve noticed a couple of things…they don’t use the definitions of some of these, but rather THEIR interpretations, like Wokeism.
It provoked the notion that rather than argue with MAGAs on definitions, ask them theirs.
Nationalism versus globalism Could be a great discussion.
Illegal immigration/border security Same. What would your preference be in regards to who we allow and by what measure and by what method?
Individual liberties versus police state Do you feel we live in a police state? Do you feel the individual liberties of minorities plays a role in this discussion or are we all on equal legal footing?
Government overreach into our private lives Like what?
Wokism vs MAGA The mother of topics…could you tell me your definition of both?
One of the things an older gentleman brought up, and I consistently hear MAGA folks talk along the lines at least of this, is very curious when I try to take Trump out of the equation. When he starts talking about how the rich keep us fighting, this or that, lobbyists writing laws…I can list systemically where Trump talks about one things but indulges directly in it as bad as anyone, like draining the swamp. Trump’s cabinet picks were some of the slimiest ever put into position, and were forced out by and large due to over corruption. So, we get caught up in the ebb and flow of the argument in that MAGA thinks Trump is one thing because he’s talking about a very viable issue, but then the left says he’s using the issue in talk only as he indulges in the very things he claims to be against at an alarming rate.
So, let’s assume the cult of Trump isn’t just about Trump and wants to tackle the actual issues…like most laws are written by lobbyists. My cynicism in me thinks that once we break these issues down, it’ll be nothing but a cult of Trump who supports the very things he’s talking against, but let’s see.
So…no?
Essentially this is the Tower of Babel story. There’s this establishment push to centralize the globe. A coalescing of power structures.
The idea was to create “Unions” on each continent. Confederations if you will. EU, NAU, etc…. They’ve proved to be ineffective, wasteful, oppressive, economically disadvantageous, and unpopular.
The reason for them is to reduce the number of cooks in the kitchen. Politics is like any other industry. This move is similar to mega consolidation in an industry to disrupt and stymy competition. The less elected officials exerting sovereignty over a region, the more the establishment can push their agenda without contestation.
But our constitution was written for Americans by Americans. The American people should resist such Unions because all it would do is erode our own rights and guarantees. And because we hold the biggest purse of anyone that can join this union, we will be expected to share that wealth (look at the Euro model where the Germany’s and UK’s of the world subsidize the Greeces and Spains)
I could go on and on about this. But it will take hours. So will the other topics. I suggest we split them and go from there.
Good stuff. You’ve managed to take globalization entirely out of globalism, which is curious. But, again, we’ve discussed how Republicans, like yourself, don’t always adhere to definitions.
So, you’re referring to international endeavors like the Warsaw Pact, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, League of Nations, NATO, and the European Union. By that logic, any treaty pact or any agreement between two nations throughout history you’ve had a problem with. Is that a correct interpretation?
Also, where do you get the information as to "the idea was to create ‘Unions’ on each continent…for the consolidation…to have less elected officials exerting sovereignty over a region…?
It appears much more reasonable that there is less a cabal as a collective interest and a history stretching back to Ghengis Khan relating to pacts, treaties, and yes…globalization.
Also, please do elaborate if you feel the need to.
Great response. I should have went with my initial instinct to avoid you on anything that appears to be a sincere attempt to have dialogue. That’s not what you want.
I’m legitimately asking you questions about your statement. You’re offended? Get real. The entire premise of the conversation was that I noticed conservatives, like yourself, don’t use regular definitions. You’re butt-hurt because you proved that point?
You listed what you believe globalism to be. I’ve asked you, with references like Warsaw Pact, NAU, etc…to further clarify your position. What a fucking snowflake
Again, you consider globalism to be pacts like the EU or NAU or NATO. So, would that relate to any agreement between two countries? If not, why?
Legitimate questions. Sincere dialogue. What part of any of my statement do you disagree with? I’m asking you for clarity of your opinion. You, apparently, want a mariachi band playing to serenade you and some cheesecake and bubbly along with each response.
My side is all good people, yours is all bad…We get it warden, partisan sheep
What a slag sack of shit. Just like with Qanon, GSC and GOPers appear to have an opinion on the subject matter but without acknowledging the definitions. You do realize there are definitions, right? So, globalism is defined by globalization…by definition.
Globalization - the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. (Dictionary)
Globalization - Globalization is the spread of products, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures. In economic terms, it describes an interdependence of nations around the globe fostered through free trade.
Globalization, or globalisation (Commonwealth English; see spelling differences), is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. Globalization has accelerated since the 18th century due to advances in transportation and communication technology. This increase in global interactions has caused a growth in international trade and the exchange of ideas, beliefs, and culture. Globalization is primarily an economic process of interaction and integration that is associated with social and cultural aspects. However, disputes and diplomacy are also large parts of the history of globalization, and of modern globalization.
So, GSC’s definition of it as relating to “unions” or how there was an “idea” to create “unions on each continent”…so “less elected officials exerting sovereignty over a region, to…push their agenda” isn’t the actual definition. He cited examples of the EU and NAU.
So, we’ve established his definition isn’t the definition. He’s entirely left out the economic aspect of private corporations, which is the context by which globalization is define by…but, we’re trying to understand the argument within his paradigm as outlined.
Merely pointing that out isn’t stating “my side good, your side bad.” It’s relaying the fact that he’s created his own definition, just like he did with Qanon. If I wanted to be a dick, I’d point out he’s the person on this board that most wants to literally throw out actual votes in favor of installing a leader, while at the same time belying “globalization” as a nefarious attempt to take away sovereignty by installing people not elected. You can’t make this shit up.
So, again…you can’t even have a basic conversation without whining. Just a CONSTANT WHINE, such victims, such martyrs. Someone disagrees or asks me a question for clarify or uses the Dictionary, oh clutch your pearls and call your mother…the gates of hell have opened, huh?
Simply put - is globalism, as defined by GSC, relating to NATO, EU, Warsaw Pact, League of Nations, etc.? If so, would any agreement between two countries be globalism?
Simple question…
Yes it is…Every single post of yours
The biggest partisan sheep there is.
Actually, you’re the biggest partisan sheep on here. Every person on here tries to substantiate their claims, researches, looks shit up. Even GSC does it, despite using the sketchiest sites known to man…except you. You’re 100% on the conservative side no matter the issue, yet put less effort than anyone on this board into forming your opinions.
By definition, that makes you the biggest sheep on this thing.
Pro-choice for starters, women’s rights, but do continue you partisan sheep.
We regularly talk about those issues, huh? You’ve been 100% partisan every single day I’ve ever been on here about any and every conversation topic ever brought up, with less effort put in than any soul here
No, I clearly don’t…You are just so far batshit crazy and delusional left that everyone appears right wing to you
I don’t need the right wing to tell me that covid mitigation hasn’t been about people’s health for quite some time.
Globalism: the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.
Internationals treaties, trade unions, etc fall into this definition. Not sure what the hell you’re talking about.
I could definitely debate that’s not what you were saying…you said there was a plan to “create Unions” on each continent to reduce the number of cooks in the kitchen and hand over sovereignty to an un-elected establishment." That’s quite a bit more nefarious than the contextual definition, but regardless.
Good, so…do any agreements between two countries fall into this category and are considered the same context of globalism that you are against? What I’m trying to gather is what falls into the category of what you don’t like and are against? Is it just the NAU and EU or is it NATO? Is it also any trade pacts between countries? Are corporations in your definition?
Street epistemology won’t work @Warden84
Why? There is no desire to reflect critically or genuinely.
Legit point. I thought it on day 1 and have been proven right ever since…can’t debate a man without any integrity. Now, we’ve determined he’s a Qanon follower who thinks a Satanic pedophile network of elites is kidnapping children for blood libel and controlling the world, that we never went to the moon, isn’t sure the earth is round, and is okay with installing a dictator and seizing private industries he doesn’t like.
Not much more to it. You can’t debate a person like that. You can’t cater policy to people like that. Many spent a long time working through the ideologies of Trump supporters with a potential notion that we need to understand more, meet them on their ground, etc. After several years, it’s been systemically proven - there’s nothing to understand. Your most basic conclusions were right about Trump supporters, it’s not a mystery - the trash got mobilized by the trash leader. 25% of every society is just shit, dumb as fuck, believes in the most outlandish shit, zero integrity to begin with which is how they got to that point to begin with…Trump pushed another 5%, maybe. The rest just voted Republican.
You don’t cater to trash. You don’t make policy for trash. Trash is trash and belongs in the dumpster