|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 23 2018 23:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Drumpf and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that gets criticized ? I'm not claiming we have solved anything properly and made good decisions with international involvement in my lifetime. So there is definitely merit in wanting the USA to keep to itself. But my question still stands. Would there ever be any international acceptance for USA involvement in countries we have to accept refugees from?
Im a little confused here on the premise of your question, what unsustainable (or otherwise) accelerated refugee movement or immigration to the US was caused by "other peoples actions?" Particularly in instances where the US did end up intervening..
The country the US receives the most refugees or immigrants from has no history of serious military presence.. this questions foundation doesnt seem appropriate.
|
On October 23 2018 23:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Trump and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that gets criticized ? I'm not claiming we have solved anything properly and made good decisions with international involvement in my lifetime. So there is definitely merit in wanting the USA to keep to itself. But my question still stands. Would there ever be any international acceptance for USA involvement in countries we have to accept refugees from?
Solved anything properly?
Of course people would accept "involvement" of the USA, except usually that means going to war. And i'm not exaggerating that. Every single foreign policy of the USA especially in regards to the middle east will potentially or has lead to war, either directly or by proxy.
You're not the victim. The USA never was. So don't act like one.
So next time you want to "involve" yourself internationally, leave the democracy spreaders at home and try actually creating something other than chaos. I'm pretty sure that international acceptance would skyrocket compared to what it is now - because now, and that's not an exaggeration, US involvement equals creating more shitholes and refugees that others have to pick up.
Could be one of the reasons, i'd argue.
|
On October 23 2018 23:39 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Trump and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that gets criticized ? I'm not claiming we have solved anything properly and made good decisions with international involvement in my lifetime. So there is definitely merit in wanting the USA to keep to itself. But my question still stands. Would there ever be any international acceptance for USA involvement in countries we have to accept refugees from?
We never accepted refugees from Korea in any real numbers, but the Korea War was an action that is generally considered a success. But that is because the person in charge, Truman, was willing to stop the war before we entered a protracted and unwinnable conflict. And then we committed resources to assure that peace held.
But the US isn’t capable of doing that any more. We don’t collect enough taxes or have the proper talent in the government to rebuild a nation any more. The post Korean War rebuilding was done on the back of knowledge and skills obtained during and after WW2 in both Japan and Germany. And with the full backing of country still running on war time tax rates. The current US might be wealthier than the US in the 1950s, but our government doesn’t share in that wealth and all of our recent endeavors into other countries show it. We like to talk big and do everything on the cheap now because no one is willing to raise taxes for any reason, not even war.
So no, people don’t want the US getting involved. Because we do a half assed job.
|
You can have a philosophical discussion about interventionism, but that's moot with the US government being captured by the far-right. They would never be able to properly organize some sort of benign, humanitarian intervention in Honduras and El Salvador. They couldn't even for Puerto Rico. More than likely they would just support paramilitary forces in those countries to criminalize and suppress the population. Or every form of aid would be tied to enacting a "pro-business" agenda (i.e. gutting government programs in such a way that crime would actually increase in the long term). We know this because that's what the US routinely does, even with the Democrats in power, let alone the GOP. Recall that Hillary Clinton bears much responsibility for legitimizing the coup in Honduras in 2009, which helped destabilize the country. Or recall the US support for the soft coup in Brazil which is now paving the way for Bolsonaro (which will create more violence in the next ten years or so). Also, the CIA famously supported civil war in Nicaragua in the 80's in order to oust the leftwing government there.
|
Great so I live in a country of greedy and incompetent assholes now. Once a shining beacon of hope, premier advocate of human rights, and leader of the free world (were we ever? It’s good to pretend I guess) now doesn’t give a shit about anybody else cause we can’t “afford” to anymore. Gotta raise your kids to only watch out for number one now.
Wait if we fuck over other countries/people what’s to stop us from fucking over our fellow countrymen? Never mind it’s happening already. Proud to be americaan
|
United States43960 Posts
On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Trump and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that it gets criticized for?
This. There seems to be this weird blurring of UN sanctioned humanitarian interventions, like Somalia, with UN condemned illegal invasions, like Iraq. People want to insist that the world doesn’t want the US to do shit that they ask the US to do because they don’t want to the US to do the shit they ask them not to.
It seems clear enough to me, intervene when invited, but some people really seem to struggle with “how come it’s okay to do X when asked to do it when it’s not okay to do it at other times”.
|
On October 24 2018 02:04 riotjune wrote:
Great so I live in a country of greedy and incompetent assholes now. Once a shining beacon of hope, premier advocate of human rights, and leader of the free world (were we ever? It’s good to pretend I guess) now doesn’t give a shit about anybody else cause we can’t “afford” to anymore. Gotta raise your kids to only watch out for number one now.
Wait if we fuck over other countries/people what’s to stop us from fucking over our fellow countrymen? Never mind it’s happening already. Proud to be americaan
Don't listen or at least take at face value to Grumbels and his leftist anti-american narrative
The US has done and does a lot of good in the world.
Many many of us abroad, who have lived in actual leftist countries and face actual government tyranny, love America and follow the example of the founding fathers to the best of our abilities.
|
Bisutopia19339 Posts
On October 24 2018 02:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Trump and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that it gets criticized for? This. There seems to be this weird blurring of UN sanctioned humanitarian interventions, like Somalia, with UN condemned illegal invasions, like Iraq. People want to insist that the world doesn’t want the US to do shit that they ask the US to do because they don’t want to the US to do the shit they ask them not to. It seems clear enough to me, intervene when invited, but some people really seem to struggle with “how come it’s okay to do X when asked to do it when it’s not okay to do it st other times”.
How do you determine when you've been asked to help or intervene? Are there any good historical examples? Let's use Venezuela as an example. If they wanted US intervention how do we determine that? Cause of protests, a signed petition, or an invitation from the government? What does the UN use as a meterstick to measure the severity of a country's situation?
|
Our president stood on a stage and said he was a Nationalist and that was good. A Nationalist, by modern definition, is someone who prizes the culture and interests their nation as opposed to those of other nations. Which is associated with Nazism, due to the promotion of national interests at the expense of other, often neighboring, nations. The slow march of accepting overt talks nationalism into the public discourse should really worry people. After all, the famous and improperly attributed quote goes like this: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
|
On October 24 2018 02:21 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:04 riotjune wrote:
Great so I live in a country of greedy and incompetent assholes now. Once a shining beacon of hope, premier advocate of human rights, and leader of the free world (were we ever? It’s good to pretend I guess) now doesn’t give a shit about anybody else cause we can’t “afford” to anymore. Gotta raise your kids to only watch out for number one now.
Wait if we fuck over other countries/people what’s to stop us from fucking over our fellow countrymen? Never mind it’s happening already. Proud to be americaan Don't listen or at least take at face value to Grumbels and his leftist anti-american narrative The US has done and does a lot of good in the world. Many many of us abroad, who have lived in actual leftist countries and face actual government tyranny, love America and follow the example of the founding fathers to the best of our abilities.
So we should oppose the tyrannical, imperial nationalist President abusing federal power and impeach the political supreme court justice? Because Thomas Jefferson would be all about that shit.
|
United States43960 Posts
On October 24 2018 02:23 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:17 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2018 23:34 Godwrath wrote:On October 23 2018 23:13 BisuDagger wrote:On October 23 2018 05:38 Excludos wrote:On October 23 2018 05:05 Plansix wrote:
I’ve seen and even heard a few equally uneducated, ignorant and uninformed commentaries on the subject. I have zero interest in the Democrats feeding that beast even a little bit. Just call Trump and the conservatives what they are: Hysterical fear mongers that are afraid of 7000 unarmed people walking across a desert. Last time a bunch of unarmed people crossed a desert a religion was born, so I understand the fear. On October 23 2018 05:32 mierin wrote:
Why is the US responsible for them in the first place? They have to walk all the way here, and can't apply for asylum in any of the countries along the way?
It's not fear mongering, it's just a little off (to me) to set a precedent of accepting mass migrations like this. A. People are calling this an invasion and you have the balls to not call it fear mongering..? B. 7k Immigrants is 0.5% of all immigration that happens yearly in the US, and 17% of all asylum immigration. Compared to what you're already taking in this is not that massive of an increase. C. "Why should we do anything? It's not our problem that they're in a shitty position. Don't make it my problem!" D. What happened to the best country in the world mumbo jumbo you guys keep spewing? Is that just for show? Is it only best if no one else gets to participate? To address point D: I'm thirty and through my years international opinion has always been this: "USA is bad for using forces to do X in another country that is under such bad conditions that people are fleeing (i.e. refugees). USA is bad because they don't want to accept waves of immigrants coming from countries with bad conditions." It's really tough because this opinion to me is basically: "Don't go out and solve the problem. It's not your country and you shouldn't be there. And also accept people for as long as this problem is going to persist." I'm not advocating that the USA invade or use military force anywhere, but do you see the issue? We have to accept the consequences of other people actions without being able to do anything about it outside the bounds of our borders. Can you specify what "problems" the US has solved that it gets criticized for? This. There seems to be this weird blurring of UN sanctioned humanitarian interventions, like Somalia, with UN condemned illegal invasions, like Iraq. People want to insist that the world doesn’t want the US to do shit that they ask the US to do because they don’t want to the US to do the shit they ask them not to. It seems clear enough to me, intervene when invited, but some people really seem to struggle with “how come it’s okay to do X when asked to do it when it’s not okay to do it st other times”. How do you determine when you've been asked to help or intervene? Are there any good historical examples? Let's use Venezuela as an example. If they wanted US intervention how do we determine that? Cause of protests, a signed petition, or an invitation from the government? What does the UN use as a meterstick to measure the severity of a country's situation?
There might be some really close blurred edge cases where the arguments for and against intervention really are tied, but those are going to be rare. Venezuela isn’t one of those, they’re not going to be helped by invading them. Send them some food and toilet paper though.
Bosnia is a pretty good example of a time intervention was merited, to answer your request for an example.
You don’t need an absolute rule for how to resolve ties to deal with obvious ones, and most are the obvious ones. The lack of a solution for hypotheticals does not excuse shitty decision making in practicals. For practical purposes the question of where and when to intervene militarily is really not that hard.
|
On October 24 2018 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Our president stood on a stage and said he was a Nationalist and that was good. A Nationalist, by modern definition, is someone who prizes the culture and interests their nation as opposed to those of other nations. Which is associated with Nazism, due to the promotion of national interests at the expense of other, often neighboring, nations. The slow march of accepting overt talks nationalism into the public discourse should really worry people. After all, the famous and improperly attributed quote goes like this: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
No. Loving your country, it's principles and your flag and w/e has NOTHING to do with murdering people from other countries or discriminating by the colour of your skin. The US is the most ethnically diverse country on earth, people from all ethnicities can unite and under common principles and a sence of belonging. This has NOTHING to do with Nazism.
If you want people to worry about something, I would recommend as a first step to stop name calling people who you disagree with you or simply don't like. ( Nazi Racist Sexist Homophobic Bigot)
|
On October 24 2018 02:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:21 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 24 2018 02:04 riotjune wrote:
Great so I live in a country of greedy and incompetent assholes now. Once a shining beacon of hope, premier advocate of human rights, and leader of the free world (were we ever? It’s good to pretend I guess) now doesn’t give a shit about anybody else cause we can’t “afford” to anymore. Gotta raise your kids to only watch out for number one now.
Wait if we fuck over other countries/people what’s to stop us from fucking over our fellow countrymen? Never mind it’s happening already. Proud to be americaan Don't listen or at least take at face value to Grumbels and his leftist anti-american narrative The US has done and does a lot of good in the world. Many many of us abroad, who have lived in actual leftist countries and face actual government tyranny, love America and follow the example of the founding fathers to the best of our abilities. So we should oppose the tyrannical, imperial nationalist President abusing federal power and impeach the political supreme court justice? Because Thomas Jefferson would be all about that shit.
No. The US should not depose a democratically elected president because some very hate filled people like calling him names.
|
United States43960 Posts
GoTunk, how do you feel about Pinochet?
|
On October 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
GoTunk, how do you feel about Pinochet?
Huh not sure what you wanna know about, so I'll give you a few bullet points and you can tell me what you wanna hear
-Government murdering and torturing it's own people is bad. DJT has done nothing of this sort.
-The Military Coup happened because people had to make lines to get food, and was widely backed by the general population and political establishment. The situation was similar to what happens in Venezuela today.
-I do value the military coup calling up elections and leaving power peacefully, because dictators pretty much never do that.
|
United States43960 Posts
On October 24 2018 02:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
GoTunk, how do you feel about Pinochet? Huh not sure what you wanna know about, so I'll give you a few bullet points and you can tell me what you wanna hear -Government murdering and torturing it's own people is bad. DJT has done nothing of this sort. -The Military Coup happened because people had to make lines to get food, and was widely backed by the general population and political establishment. The situation was similar to what happens in Venezuela today. -I do value the military coup calling up elections and leaving power peacefully, because dictators pretty much never do that.
I was just curious how far gone you were. Thank you for indulging my curiousity.
|
On October 24 2018 02:39 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
GoTunk, how do you feel about Pinochet? Huh not sure what you wanna know about, so I'll give you a few bullet points and you can tell me what you wanna hear -Government murdering and torturing it's own people is bad. DJT has done nothing of this sort.
Immigrant children being detained and separated from their parents with no plan on how to reunite them later, removing healthcare for a large part of the population, and Puerto Rico. That is, in order, torture, murder, and genocide. Just because it's done out of greed and/or incompetence doesn't make his actions any more ethical.
|
On October 24 2018 02:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
GoTunk, how do you feel about Pinochet? Huh not sure what you wanna know about, so I'll give you a few bullet points and you can tell me what you wanna hear -Government murdering and torturing it's own people is bad. DJT has done nothing of this sort. -The Military Coup happened because people had to make lines to get food, and was widely backed by the general population and political establishment. The situation was similar to what happens in Venezuela today. -I do value the military coup calling up elections and leaving power peacefully, because dictators pretty much never do that. I was just curious how far gone you were. Thank you for indulging my curiousity.
How do you feel about Hugo Chavez and Salvador Allende?
|
On October 24 2018 02:32 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:24 Plansix wrote:
Our president stood on a stage and said he was a Nationalist and that was good. A Nationalist, by modern definition, is someone who prizes the culture and interests their nation as opposed to those of other nations. Which is associated with Nazism, due to the promotion of national interests at the expense of other, often neighboring, nations. The slow march of accepting overt talks nationalism into the public discourse should really worry people. After all, the famous and improperly attributed quote goes like this: “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” No. Loving your country, it's principles and your flag and w/e has NOTHING to do with murdering people from other countries or discriminating by the colour of your skin. The US is the most ethnically diverse country on earth, people from all ethnicities can unite and under common principles and a sence of belonging. This has NOTHING to do with Nazism. If you want people to worry about something, I would recommend as a first step to stop name calling people who you disagree with you or simply don't like. ( Nazi Racist Sexist Homophobic Bigot)
Nationalism isn't about loving your country. Patriotism is. That is why we have two different words, because they mean different things. Nationalism has everything to do with Nazism because the Nazis championed Nationalism. You can't divorce them from the thing they championed. That isn't how history works.
|
On October 24 2018 02:44 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 02:39 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 24 2018 02:34 KwarK wrote:
GoTunk, how do you feel about Pinochet? Huh not sure what you wanna know about, so I'll give you a few bullet points and you can tell me what you wanna hear -Government murdering and torturing it's own people is bad. DJT has done nothing of this sort. Immigrant children being detained and separated from their parents with no plan on how to reunite them later, removing healthcare for a large part of the population, and Puerto Rico. That is, in order, torture, murder, and genocide. Just because it's done out of greed and/or incompetence doesn't make his actions any more ethical.
The "Trump derangement syndome" is pretty accurate. Otherwhise reasonable people (I suppose) writing non-sense because of their hate-filled heart it's pretty amazing to watch.
Comparing disagreement on policy with the government military kidnapping people and torturing them for information, sometimes killing them and disposing the bodies on the sea, it's just lunacy. Get some therapy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
