ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

For those of you who think elected USA politicians should control your healthcare, and anything else: this story is about an elected politician in Washington DC, who stated that rich Jews control the weather (He blamed Jews for an unusual snow storm late in the winter season). Then he went to the Holocaust museum to "apologize and learn sensitivity"
and at the Holocaust museum he defended the Nazis and argued with the tour guide about what the Nazis were doing.

LOL yeah I want genius's like this controlling my healthcare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/20/dc-lawmakers-make-good-visit-to-holocaust-museum-after-controversial-comments-goes-awry.html

"

1453R wrote:

Someone explain to me why 'Globalism' is now being spat with the same venom as communism?

Is there a particular reason that a 'Nation State' should tell every other nation state in the world to fuck off a cliff and die and watch the whole world burn down because of it, a'la Trump? How does globalism lead to the erosion of individual liberties? All "globalism" means is that shit what happens in Africa has more impact on you in Iceland than it used to, because borders are becoming increasingly arbitrary and pointless.

No, that isn't what globalism means. Globalism indicates federalism on a global scale - that is, being or working towards a single one-world government. The foremost examples of globalism are when an international body such as the United Nations or the European Union attempt to override the sovereignty of a member nation.

From least centralized to most: Individual, neighborhood, municipality, region, nation, continent, world. I wouldn't say I'm a nationalist; I'm an individualist. But I'll take a nationalist over a globalist, hands down. I can't think of anything inherently more evil than an entity with monopoly of governance over the entire planet.

But nationalists are kinda shitty too tbh. It's sad when we've become so horribly lost that millions-scale collectivists are the good guys in a fight against billions-scale collectivists.

You're a United States citizen, right Scrotie? I believe so, anyways. Would that be what you call yourself on these forums? A citizen of the U.S.? Or a citizen of [Home State Here], which just so happens to be part of the U.S.?

In my experience, the overwhelming tendency (at least around me/in the 'northern' or old Union states) is to consider ourselves U.S. citizens who happen to live in whatever state we're in. I'm not a citizen of Minnesota who just also happens to be a U.S. citizen, I'm an American that lives in Minnesota. The federal government takes primacy, but in cases where it makes more sense or is more desirable, the federal government allows local states to decide on laws better suited to their areas and jurisdictions. States do the same on the county/municipal level.

I see no reason why the same model wouldn't work for any prospective global government. People will still consider themselves citizens of their specific nation first, nobody is going to call themselves a 'citizen of Earth' without intentionally trying to be a hipster schyte. The UN specifically exists to deal with global issues or national problems with global impact; we already have a protoform world government, it simply doesn't have much actual authority.

And once again, I'll point out that a 'universal' world government is better than simply letting China quietly buy the entire world, however you feel about globalism.

Globalism is already happening, it's just a relatively slow processes.

Trading is now global
Access to information is now global
Travel is global
Culture is in the process of being global
Ideologies aren't global but it's more than just a nation.
governance is also in the process of being more than just nationwide with the examples you cited.

While I do understand your point that making a single government for the word is dangerous, it's also something I see as inevitable. The only question is when rather than if. It's also very possible that it will become a west vs east thing. It's already shaping like that.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

1453R wrote:

Someone explain to me why 'Globalism' is now being spat with the same venom as communism?

Is there a particular reason that a 'Nation State' should tell every other nation state in the world to fuck off a cliff and die and watch the whole world burn down because of it, a'la Trump? How does globalism lead to the erosion of individual liberties? All "globalism" means is that shit what happens in Africa has more impact on you in Iceland than it used to, because borders are becoming increasingly arbitrary and pointless.

No, that isn't what globalism means. Globalism indicates federalism on a global scale - that is, being or working towards a single one-world government. The foremost examples of globalism are when an international body such as the United Nations or the European Union attempt to override the sovereignty of a member nation.

From least centralized to most: Individual, neighborhood, municipality, region, nation, continent, world. I wouldn't say I'm a nationalist; I'm an individualist. But I'll take a nationalist over a globalist, hands down. I can't think of anything inherently more evil than an entity with monopoly of governance over the entire planet.

When isn't that not happening? U.S. get to tell rest of the world what it want and get to go over and bomb the hell out of them when they don't. World organization is made out of bunch of countries with more powerful countries getting to tell weaker countries what it want and what they have to do. When a bunch of weaker countries stick together to tell larger countries what they want, they decide to say No and want to leave. Global politic in a nutshell.

Globalism is your friend, not your enemy, if you're in a small weak country that can't stand militarily or economically against a superpower. Prime example being Crimea, really - when Russia just kinda literally outright stole Crimea from the Ukraine through the shadiest imaginable means outside of an outright war of conquest, the Ukraine kinda just had to sit there and take it because Russia's too big for them to deal with. The UN made the frowniest faces it could at Russia, but because the UN can't actually do anything outside of make suggestions to its member states that they're free to pursue or not as they desire, Russia flipped Ukraine and the UN both the bird, said "mine now", and planted flags like Marvin the Martian claiming a country in the name of Mars.

If the UN could've said "Yeah no, we're going to start sanctioning you hardcore and considering military intervention if you goobers don't back the hell off and stop trying to eat half of Ukraine", Crimea might still be where it belongs.

Globalism, under the definition Scrotie gives, puts the larger countries in tighter check because the global collective can tell any individual member state that gets out of hand to piss off. Yeah, smaller states have to play ball as well, but if they do so they get additional protection above and beyond what they have now from Russian imperialism, U.S. economic rugby, and China's attempts to eliminate the individual completely from world culture. Among other things.

"

1453R wrote:

You're a United States citizen, right Scrotie? I believe so, anyways. Would that be what you call yourself on these forums? A citizen of the U.S.? Or a citizen of [Home State Here], which just so happens to be part of the U.S.?

In my experience, the overwhelming tendency (at least around me/in the 'northern' or old Union states) is to consider ourselves U.S. citizens who happen to live in whatever state we're in. I'm not a citizen of Minnesota who just also happens to be a U.S. citizen, I'm an American that lives in Minnesota.

This is indeed what normal people do, and I confess to being disappointingly normal as far as this goes. It's worth noting that even normies easily cut through this mind fog like a knife through butter if you list capitals instead of territories; "Washington DC" goes over like a lead balloon compared to "Americuh." I guess I describe my identity negatively in this sense, focusing on what I oppose in order of the severity of the problem; thankfully, I don't consider myself an Earthling along those same lines yet, because such an abomination is not yet real.

"

1453R wrote:

The federal government takes primacy, but in cases where it makes more sense or is more desirable, the federal government allows local states to decide on laws better suited to their areas and jurisdictions. States do the same on the county/municipal level.

I know what federalism is. But I ask ypu, under what circumstances is it even remotely ethical for someone outaide of, say, a particular county to dictate to the locally elected government of that county how they're running their government improperly? Is not any government of that size of jurisdiction, if not smaller, capable of deciding without deference to any more collectivized authority what is and is not in the best interest of its constituents?

"

1453R wrote:

nobody is going to call themselves a 'citizen of Earth' without intentionally trying to be a hipster schyte.

I suspect the sex-drugs-and-rock feminists of the 1970s never imagined that their movement would one day lead to a Puritanical shaming of male sexual desire that mirrors conservative Christian sexual mores but with the gender discrimination reversed. I wonder what derogatory names they'd have had for any such then-hypothetical feminists of the future.

"

1453R wrote:

a 'universal' world government is better than simply letting China quietly buy the entire world, however you feel about globalism.

In other words, European/American-led globalism is preferable to Chinese-led globalism.

But there sure are a whole lot of Chinese people; what's better for them? Also: who will cuck first?

"

1453R wrote:

Globalism is your friend, not your enemy, if you're in a small weak country that can't stand militarily or economically against a superpower. Prime example being Crimea, really - when Russia just kinda literally outright stole Crimea from the Ukraine through the shadiest imaginable means outside of an outright war of conquest, the Ukraine kinda just had to sit there and take it because Russia's too big for them to deal with. The UN made the frowniest faces it could at Russia, but because the UN can't actually do anything outside of make suggestions to its member states that they're free to pursue or not as they desire, Russia flipped Ukraine and the UN both the bird, said "mine now", and planted flags like Marvin the Martian claiming a country in the name of Mars.

Russia consider it taking back a stolen property. Russian see Crimea gift To Ukraine and its transferred by Moscow to Ukraine in 1954 as a historical wrong. Crimea then part of the Soviet Union was transferred with a word of the Communist Party without discussions and opinions of the Russians nor the Crimeans. Crimea was historically part of Russia, and Khrushchev who gave it to Ukraine in a gesture mystified Russians, Ukrainian and the Crimeans. It didn’t seem like a problem for Russia at the time when Ukraine was part of Soviet Union. It is like giving Crimea to yourself but become a problem when the Soviet Union collapsed.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This is indeed what normal people do, and I confess to being disappointingly normal as far as this goes. It's worth noting that even normies easily cut through this mind fog like a knife through butter if you list capitals instead of territories; "Washington DC" goes over like a lead balloon compared to "Americuh." I guess I describe my identity negatively in this sense, focusing on what I oppose in order of the severity of the problem; thankfully, I don't consider myself an Earthling along those same lines yet, because such an abomination is not yet real.

I point this out not to shame normies or what-have-you, but to simply point out that the human brain has different ideas of what constitutes its 'tribe'. The species is highly, highly tribal; we're never going to be a single, unified global people until there's more than one globe with people on it. We will go outrageously out of our way to find a 'Them' for us to be the 'Us' against.

Folks consider themselves Americans over here, with some exceptions (mostly cormer Confederate states, but even then). That's their chosen tribe.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I know what federalism is. But I ask ypu, under what circumstances is it even remotely ethical for someone outaide of, say, a particular county to dictate to the locally elected government of that county how they're running their government improperly? Is not any government of that size of jurisdiction, if not smaller, capable of deciding without deference to any more collectivized authority what is and is not in the best interest of its constituents?

I can imagine a lot of folks would say it'd be awfully ethical for someone, anyone, literally anyone at all, to dictate to North Korea how it's being run improperly.

Beyond that extreme example, however? Let's turn this around and get to a point you made in another thread somewhere (or maybe this one a while ago, I forget) - government as a service. You're on record as wanting government to have to be run like a corporation (fucking euuughh, but let's go with it for now), with people able to opt in or opt out of governments as they like and choose which Government Carrier, let's call it, they want to subscribe to.

Globalism may well be able to give you that, after a sense. A global government could, potentially, reduce issues with immigration and allow constituents of that single unifying government to move around the globe more freely, pick which member country has the government they want to live in. It's not an actual marketplace of governance, which I cannot imagine being anything but a instant flaming disaster anyways, but if people were more free to live wherever they liked without hypernationalist dickhats camping on the borders with sniper rifles competing with each other for DURTY FURRINER kill counts? Then perhaps the governing systems that encouraged people to immigrate to, rather than emigrate from, could emerge as triumphant. It'd be about as close to a marketplace of governments as you can get without the utter breathtaking lunacy of expecting people to sign up for government the same way they sign up for car insurance. Note how many people do everything in their power to not sign up for car insurance - how is allowing people to just opt into anarchy any kind of good idea whatsoever?

"

1453R wrote:

I suspect the sex-drugs-and-rock feminists of the 1970s never imagined that their movement would one day lead to a Puritanical shaming of male sexual desire that mirrors conservative Christian sexual mores but with the gender discrimination reversed. I wonder what derogatory names they'd have had for any such then-hypothetical feminists of the future.

An interesting question. If one I've had more than one very unpleasant debate over with a 'friend' who despises anything like feminism, BLM, or any other equality-seeking movement. Suffice it to say this - those so-called 'feminists' are having their backlash against said Christian social mores. They're already inviting backlash against their own equally derogatory and fundamentally unfair beliefs - and not even remotely all of it from men. I know plenty of women who hate those folks fiercely for giving feminism a bad name and making everyone think women are all scathing prudes.

This country is never going to get over being founded by fucking Puritans...

Anyways. As a nonbinary-type individual with an oft-uncomfortable ability to see from both ends of that particular debate, I'll simply say this - errybuddy gets horny. Don't like it? Don't go outside.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

In other words, European/American-led globalism is preferable to Chinese-led globalism.

But there sure are a whole lot of Chinese people; what's better for them? Also: who will cuck first?

Globalism in which Chinese ultramegahypersocialist mores are balanced by whatever we're calling the current Euro/U.S. mutant sorta-capitalist/sorta-individualist Weirdo Mores is better than either one alone. As for what's better for Chinese people: wouldn't it be nice if their government didn't tightly control their information feeds and stamp out any sort of dissent so that the Chinese people could choose if they wanted to stay in China and just literally flat-out belong to their government, or if maybe they wanted to move somewhere they're allowed to have personal rights and freedoms?

I think it would be a very interesting experiment indeed, if one unfeasible to run on any serious scale. Noting that most of my current information on China comes from a Chinese expat/dual-citizen (I'm not actually sure which, she's never told me), I'd be quite keen on seeing what the Average Chinese Citizen would pick, if offered the choice.

"

1453R wrote:

Globalism is your friend, not your enemy, if you're in a small weak country that can't stand militarily or economically against a superpower. Prime example being Crimea, really - when Russia just kinda literally outright stole Crimea from the Ukraine through the shadiest imaginable means outside of an outright war of conquest, the Ukraine kinda just had to sit there and take it because Russia's too big for them to deal with. The UN made the frowniest faces it could at Russia, but because the UN can't actually do anything outside of make suggestions to its member states that they're free to pursue or not as they desire, Russia flipped Ukraine and the UN both the bird, said "mine now", and planted flags like Marvin the Martian claiming a country in the name of Mars.

If the UN could've said "Yeah no, we're going to start sanctioning you hardcore and considering military intervention if you goobers don't back the hell off and stop trying to eat half of Ukraine", Crimea might still be where it belongs.

Globalism, under the definition Scrotie gives, puts the larger countries in tighter check because the global collective can tell any individual member state that gets out of hand to piss off. Yeah, smaller states have to play ball as well, but if they do so they get additional protection above and beyond what they have now from Russian imperialism, U.S. economic rugby, and China's attempts to eliminate the individual completely from world culture. Among other things.

Russia took Crimea because Europe is weak and couldn't stop it from happening. I would not be surprised if Russia controlled most of Europe in another 50 years.

Hopefully my memory will still be good enough to remember all the times the Europeans complain about USA military spending on forums.