|
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 November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:14 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Would you care to clarify this post then? Not sure what more there is to clarify, do you need me to define hyperbole for you? You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc..
You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country.
And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044.
On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate.
Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century.
|
On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:10 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:09 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
I can appreciate being more concerned with things closer to home.
That's not the same thing as claiming Putin "isn't as bad" as the American government, a sentiment which you claimed was "to an extent... true". I didn't say that though lol *shrug* On November 12 2018 07:55 kmillz wrote:"He sure isn't as bad as the Satanists that have run our country." This is hyperbole, but to an extent it is true. Our own government has done far more destruction to our rights than Russia has in the last few decades. Would you care to clarify this post then? Not sure what more there is to clarify, do you need me to define hyperbole for you? You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism.
What? I don't even...
I literally quoted you writing just that. Why write otherwise? Let's imagine that I inserted "ahead of the interests of other countries" anywhere you like in my sentences. It doesn't change the content at all.
|
On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:15 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Not sure what more there is to clarify, do you need me to define hyperbole for you? You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century.
Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures in my head they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are seen as are morally bad people.
|
On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures in my head they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are seen as are morally bad people.
Oh I see what the problem is now. You aren't arguing against anyone in the forum, you are arguing against what you think people said. Good on you.
Also; why bold "literally" when you are using it metaphorically? You are literally using it wrong ;D
|
On November 13 2018 04:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:14 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:10 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say that though lol *shrug* On November 12 2018 07:55 kmillz wrote:[quote]
This is hyperbole, but to an extent it is true. Our own government has done far more destruction to our rights than Russia has in the last few decades. Would you care to clarify this post then? Not sure what more there is to clarify, do you need me to define hyperbole for you? You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. What? I don't even... I literally quoted you writing just that. Why write otherwise?
Because you attacked a straw man argument. You left out that most important part of what I said in your response. I never said that only nationalists care about their country or that people who are not nationalists do not care about their country. It's silly to argue that point because it's one I never made.
On November 13 2018 04:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures in my head they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are seen as are morally bad people. Oh I see what the problem is now. You aren't arguing against anyone in the forum, you are arguing against what you think people said. Good on you. Also; why bold "literally" when you are using it metaphorically? You are literally using it wrong ;D
Uhh whatever you say dude. I definitely didn't respond to the guy who said "Nobody runs on that platform". Nope. Just the crazy voices in my head. You got it.
|
On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:22 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
You could define to what extent you believe it is true. Otherwise we are not exchanging information and this is not a conversation, merely rhetoric. Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are morally bad people.
That isn’t the Democrats platform on immigration. It is the Republican’s talking points on immigration.
The democrats are about updating the immigration system, deportation of criminals and a path to citizenship for a section of the illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas. They are pretty flexible on that last part. And more work visas too and an update to the system in general. They want to update all of this to make our country better and shitty. Weirdly enough, it is similar to the Republican platform in the 1980s.
And the current administration and Republicans have children in literally concentration camps because we lack jails. And don’t even start with the Nazi thing, because the US used concentration camps in WW2.
On November 13 2018 04:52 kmillz wrote:
Uhh whatever you say dude. I definitely didn't respond to the guy who said "Nobody runs on that platform". Nope. Just the crazy voices in my head. You got it.
No one runs on a platform of punishing their country or not doing things that are in their country's best interest. That isn't a platform that exists.
|
On November 13 2018 04:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:27 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
Globally and overall Russia is absolutely worse than the US, and Putin is not a good man. That doesn't mean we can't find common ground and things to work out with one of the world's biggest nuclear powers. As it relates to how these things directly affect American citizens, our own government has been more damaging to our own civil liberties with heinous policies enacted by both George Bush and Barack Obama. Most notably the Patriot Act and the NDAA. Saying "Putin's not as bad as Satanists in our own government" is an exaggeration, in my view (they are not literally Satanists and our government is not literally worse than Putin), but it (the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is. The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so the American government) has been very bad for American civil liberties and is directly affecting Americans in a worse way than Russia currently is is not really an interesting statement. Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are morally bad people. That isn’t the Democrats platform on immigration. It is the Republican’s talking points on immigration. The democrats are about updating the immigration system, deportation of criminals and a path to citizenship for a section of the illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas. They are pretty flexible on that last part. And more work visas too and an update to the system in general. They want to update all of this to make our country better and shitty. Weirdly enough, it is similar to the Republican platform in the 1980s. And the current administration and Republicans have children in literally concentration camps because we lack jails. And don’t even start with the Nazi thing, because the US used concentration camps in WW2.
Well you clearly know very little about the Democrats apparently. They have very little interest in deporting, or even arresting illegal immigrant criminals.:
"Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: Feinstein’s “Keep Families Together Act” would “essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.”
https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/18/politics/collins-says-she-doesnt-support-democratic-bill-to-end-family-separations/
|
Worth pointing out in light of all the gloom last week about Dems underperforming that current estimates have them going +35 to +40, with 538 placing it at +38 last I saw. Combined with taking 7 governors houses, it was a pretty sizable wave all things considered.
|
On November 13 2018 05:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Worth pointing out in light of all the gloom last week about Dems underperforming that current estimates have them going +35 to +40, with 538 placing it at +38 last I saw. Combined with taking 7 governors houses, it was a pretty sizable wave all things considered.
If FL flips (It wont, but a man can dream!) with the recount , its only a -1 loss for dems in the senate. That would be HUGE
|
On November 13 2018 05:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so
[quote]
is not really an interesting statement.
Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are morally bad people. That isn’t the Democrats platform on immigration. It is the Republican’s talking points on immigration. The democrats are about updating the immigration system, deportation of criminals and a path to citizenship for a section of the illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas. They are pretty flexible on that last part. And more work visas too and an update to the system in general. They want to update all of this to make our country better and shitty. Weirdly enough, it is similar to the Republican platform in the 1980s. And the current administration and Republicans have children in literally concentration camps because we lack jails. And don’t even start with the Nazi thing, because the US used concentration camps in WW2. Well you clearly know very little about the Democrats apparently. They have very little interest in deporting, or even arresting illegal immigrant criminals.: "Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: Feinstein’s “Keep Families Together Act” would “essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.” https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/18/politics/collins-says-she-doesnt-support-democratic-bill-to-end-family-separations/
It is weird, because Collins didn’t suggest a change to the bill to address that problem and simply refused to support it on its face. Given that any bill would also need to go through the House and then back to the Senate for consolidation, Senator’s Collin’s objection could have been easily addressed during the 3 separate rewrites of that bill.
And given that she has been in the Senate for well over a decade, I know she knew that. So she didn’t support the bill for political reasons and to attack democrats with a false claim that voting yes on the bill would suddenly prevent the arrests of terrorists. Because at the end of the day, family separation is something the Republican base loves.
So maybe I know the Republicans and Democrats very well. Along with how congress works.
|
On November 13 2018 05:01 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 08:32 Aquanim wrote:
[quote]
The government of the United States has greater capability by several orders of magnitude to affect the lives of its citizens, for better or for worse, than any foreign power including Russia, so
[quote]
is not really an interesting statement.
Is there a reason why Trump didn't make your list of presidents infringing on civil liberties? I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are morally bad people. That isn’t the Democrats platform on immigration. It is the Republican’s talking points on immigration. The democrats are about updating the immigration system, deportation of criminals and a path to citizenship for a section of the illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas. They are pretty flexible on that last part. And more work visas too and an update to the system in general. They want to update all of this to make our country better and shitty. Weirdly enough, it is similar to the Republican platform in the 1980s. And the current administration and Republicans have children in literally concentration camps because we lack jails. And don’t even start with the Nazi thing, because the US used concentration camps in WW2. Well you clearly know very little about the Democrats apparently. They have very little interest in deporting, or even arresting illegal immigrant criminals.: "Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: Feinstein’s “Keep Families Together Act” would “essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.” https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/18/politics/collins-says-she-doesnt-support-democratic-bill-to-end-family-separations/
So you're saying a Republican was asked what the Democrats' bill would do and they said it would do something that sounds really horrible? Color me shocked!
Hey, you seem to feel really strongly that the government should pursue policies that benefit its citizens even at the expense of foreigners. Can I ask, is that true even if the effect is negative sum (that is, the foreigners are hurt more than Americans are helped)? And how big do you let that negative sum get? If we can commit atrocities abroad to achieve minor economic benefits domestically, should we do it?
More to the point, do you have a moral argument for why Americans' benefit should matter more than non-Americans? Or do you just not really engage with the morality of it?
|
On November 13 2018 05:06 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Worth pointing out in light of all the gloom last week about Dems underperforming that current estimates have them going +35 to +40, with 538 placing it at +38 last I saw. Combined with taking 7 governors houses, it was a pretty sizable wave all things considered. If FL flips (It wont, but a man can dream!) with the recount , its only a -1 loss for dems in the senate. That would be HUGE
The Judge also ruled today that he found no signed of fraud in the recount and told everyone to “tone down the rhetoric”. But the republicans will still cry foul if they lose that senate seat in Florida.
|
On November 13 2018 05:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:01 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:
[quote]
I was just answering the question, I'm sorry it was uninteresting lol. As I'm sure you are aware, alot of Trump supporters are nationalists. That's not a dog whistle, it just means they care about the interests of our own country ahead of the interests of other countries. Trump ran on "America First" and that resonated very well for his base. Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it. If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal. However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly. It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for. You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are morally bad people. That isn’t the Democrats platform on immigration. It is the Republican’s talking points on immigration. The democrats are about updating the immigration system, deportation of criminals and a path to citizenship for a section of the illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas. They are pretty flexible on that last part. And more work visas too and an update to the system in general. They want to update all of this to make our country better and shitty. Weirdly enough, it is similar to the Republican platform in the 1980s. And the current administration and Republicans have children in literally concentration camps because we lack jails. And don’t even start with the Nazi thing, because the US used concentration camps in WW2. Well you clearly know very little about the Democrats apparently. They have very little interest in deporting, or even arresting illegal immigrant criminals.: "Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: Feinstein’s “Keep Families Together Act” would “essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.” https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/18/politics/collins-says-she-doesnt-support-democratic-bill-to-end-family-separations/ It is weird, because Collins didn’t suggest a change to the bill to address that problem and simply refused to support it on its face. Given that any bill would also need to go through the House and then back to the Senate for consolidation, Senator’s Collin’s objection could have been easily addressed during the 3 separate rewrites of that bill. And given that she has been in the Senate for well over a decade, I know she knew that. So she didn’t support the bill for political reasons and to attack democrats with a false claim that voting yes on the bill would suddenly prevent the arrests of terrorists. Because at the end of the day, family separation is something the Republican base loves. So maybe I know the Republicans and Democrats very well. Along with how congress works.
Or, you know, the Democrats could just not put things like that in the bill. But they did, and it proves my point.
|
On November 13 2018 05:17 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:11 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 05:01 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:53 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:45 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:28 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 04:20 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:00 Plansix wrote:On November 13 2018 03:40 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]Oh look, it's the only nationalists care about their country bullshit again. Guess what, it's pretty safe to assume that everyone cares about the interests of their own country. And none of them would identity with being a nationalist, except, well, nationalists themselves. What a worthless definition. What nationalists care about is propagating the power of their politics; they don't care about their own country, they own care about their politics, and everybody and everything else that makes up a democracy and democratic institution can just be destroted along with it.
If you care about the interest of your country, that doesn't make you a nationalist, that just makes you normal.
However, if you think only nationalists care about the interest of their country, that makes you...just a nationalist sadly.
It's not something to be proudly thumping your chest for.
You keep leaving out that part about "ahead of the interests of other countries" as if I didn't say it. I'm not sure if you're just being dense or intentionally misleading to try to turn the context I used nationalism in into something else. And yes you can care about your country and not be a nationalist, but you could also put the interests of foreigners AHEAD of the interests of your own nation while still caring about your own country. That's not nationalism. This is not a political theory that is practiced in modern politics. Or really ever. No one runs on the putting another nation’s interests ahead of their own nation. That isn’t a platform that exists. Dangermousecatdog point that nationalism is national self interest at the expense of foreign nations, while claiming to be the only political viewpoint interested in protecting national interests. Which is completely bullshit. And don’t even try to use the globalist label as people putting other nations first. Globalist is just a word people use to describe “not nationalist” or “people who disagree with my bad economic plans”. Of course they do, they just do it under the guise of moral superiority to defend those policies. "We're not the racists! We love immigrants! We are a nation of immigrants. Diversity is our strength. Our message is better because we are better people than them!" etc.. etc.. You are talking about some fictional political figures in your head. No one says that. Immigration has been a part of the US and other nations for as long as there have been nations. For the US it has only been in the last 100 or so years that political factions have been invested keeping specific groups out of the country. And diversity best be the strength of any political party in the US going forward, because whites will be in the minority after 2044. On November 13 2018 04:28 kmillz wrote:On November 13 2018 04:25 Velr wrote:
Wtf are you even on about?
You use an outdated meaning of natoonalist/m and then just stick to it to fight some stupid fight? Sorry, you don't get to change the definition I'm using just because you want to get into a pointless semantics debate. Pretty sure you are the one that started the semantics fight by trying to strip nationalism of all its historical context. It would be like someone trying to advocate for Communism as “everyone getting along and being nice” and yelling at people when they point out all the violence in the first half of 19th century. Legal immigration isn't a problem, it's illegal immigration and no they are not political figures they are moral platforms Democrats literally run on. If you want stronger immigration enforcement you are labeled a racist, bigot, xenophobe, and some even go as far as to compare people with that viewpoint to Nazis or white supremacists. That's why they try to turn the word nationalism into something it isn't. Your opponents views can be easily dismissed if they are morally bad people. That isn’t the Democrats platform on immigration. It is the Republican’s talking points on immigration. The democrats are about updating the immigration system, deportation of criminals and a path to citizenship for a section of the illegal immigrants who overstayed their visas. They are pretty flexible on that last part. And more work visas too and an update to the system in general. They want to update all of this to make our country better and shitty. Weirdly enough, it is similar to the Republican platform in the 1980s. And the current administration and Republicans have children in literally concentration camps because we lack jails. And don’t even start with the Nazi thing, because the US used concentration camps in WW2. Well you clearly know very little about the Democrats apparently. They have very little interest in deporting, or even arresting illegal immigrant criminals.: "Sen. Susan Collins of Maine: Feinstein’s “Keep Families Together Act” would “essentially prevent arrest within 100 miles of the border, even if the person has committed a serious crime or is suspected of terrorist activities.” https://bangordailynews.com/2018/06/18/politics/collins-says-she-doesnt-support-democratic-bill-to-end-family-separations/ It is weird, because Collins didn’t suggest a change to the bill to address that problem and simply refused to support it on its face. Given that any bill would also need to go through the House and then back to the Senate for consolidation, Senator’s Collin’s objection could have been easily addressed during the 3 separate rewrites of that bill. And given that she has been in the Senate for well over a decade, I know she knew that. So she didn’t support the bill for political reasons and to attack democrats with a false claim that voting yes on the bill would suddenly prevent the arrests of terrorists. Because at the end of the day, family separation is something the Republican base loves. So maybe I know the Republicans and Democrats very well. Along with how congress works. Or, you know, the Democrats could just not put things like that in the bill. But they did, and it proves my point.
No, it does not. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of how legislation is written and how easy it is for a politician to misstate the resulting effect of a given bill. For example, death panels still do not exist. The bill would not have resulted preventing law enforcement from arresting suspected terrorists. And if there was any ambiguity the legislature’s intent, they could have made it clear through the amendment process.
|
Looks like Trump is skipping the Arlington Cemetery ceremony as well in addition to the one he skipped in France.
As far as elections go, Democrats won the Arizona Senate, pretty good turnout there.
|
5930 Posts
On November 13 2018 05:06 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2018 05:02 On_Slaught wrote:
Worth pointing out in light of all the gloom last week about Dems underperforming that current estimates have them going +35 to +40, with 538 placing it at +38 last I saw. Combined with taking 7 governors houses, it was a pretty sizable wave all things considered. If FL flips (It wont, but a man can dream!) with the recount , its only a -1 loss for dems in the senate. That would be HUGE
Even a -2 loss isn't that bad since that's pretty much what everyone was expecting with the shitty ass map the Democrats had. Nelson really isn't winning unless Scott allowed people to vote by email (hence throwing out votes at best or completely invalidating the election at worst) or something stupid. It is Florida after all.
On November 13 2018 05:30 Lmui wrote:
Looks like Trump is skipping the Arlington Cemetery ceremony as well in addition to the one he skipped in France.
As far as elections go, Democrats won the Arizona Senate, pretty good turnout there.
Just as important for the Democrats, the SOS race is down to the wire.
|
|
|
Democrats has taken Jeff Flake’s seat and the Republican candidates concedes with grace and a dog. Dogs are good.
This seat is 100% Trumps loss. Jeff Flake would easily won this race.
|
There's zero evidence to back that up. He was at 35%/35% fav/unfav in 2016, and similarly even in 2015, before he got into it with Trump. Conservatives were already pissed at him. Trump's approval rating is like 50%+ in Arizona (which means I'm not really sure it's a swing state yet). At least I think that's what I saw for an exit poll. At any rate he's doing better there than one might expect. Jeff Flake would have been in the fight of his life as well. Combine a long and bitter primary, which ends way too close to the general, with a good Democrat environment and a moderate nominee running to the right, it was going to be hard for a candidate as lackluster as McSally or Flake.
I will however enjoy watching another left-wing Democrat have fun playing moderate though, must be exhausting. (She supported sending troops to the border for the caravan and refused to endorse the Democrat running for Gov, lol). Still, this will teach the 2020 Democrat primary voters nothing, I suspect. Which means....
On to 2020! (Florida is over)
As a Republican who now gets to watch a car crash on the other side and not my own, I really look forward to it. Hope GH comes back as primaries arrive!
|
On November 13 2018 10:46 Introvert wrote:There's zero evidence to back that up. He was at 35%/35% fav/unfav in 2016, and similarly even in 2015, before he got into it with Trump. Conservatives were already pissed at him. Trump's approval rating is like 50%+ in Arizona (which means I'm not really sure it's a swing state yet). At least I think that's what I saw for an exit poll. At any rate he's doing better there than one might expect. Jeff Flake would have been in the fight of his life as well. Combine a long and bitter primary, which ends way too close to the general, with a good Democrat environment and a moderate nominee running to the right, it was going to be hard for a candidate as lackluster as McSally or Flake. I will however enjoy watching another left-wing Democrat have fun playing moderate though, must be exhausting. (She supported sending troops to the border for the caravan and refused to endorse the Democrat running for Gov, lol). Still, this will teach the 2020 Democrat primary voters nothing, I suspect. Which means.... On to 2020! (Florida is over) As a Republican who now gets to watch a car crash on the other side and not my own, I really look forward to it. Hope GH comes back as primaries arrive!
Yeah, conservatives didn’t decide this race. Independent and moderate Republican voters did. The conservatives purity tests in the primary and rampant support of Trump meant he didn’t feel like he could win. The Republican conservative base Isn’t concerned with electability and lost a senate seat Republicans have held since 1988.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
