Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well if you I deed have a surplus of firing synapses would you mind at least lending ol' Joe a few? Personally I'm fed up with the lesser of two evils voting choices.
Personally I think Trump is that lesser evil. With him and Clinton I voted for neither. I may do so again but I'm leaning Trump.
I could consider myself a nationalist because I do believe in America first. Take care of our own, slashing foriegn aid to the bone, coming down on illegals like a Grizzly with a sore tooth, that sort of thing.
I dont believe being nationalist. makes one a racist or supremacist at all. I'm sure not either of the latter. The US certainly has citizens of all skin tones and I put all of them before citizens of any other country.
I have heartburn with these would be birder jumpers who try to come here flying the colors of where they come from. That's not being racist or xenophobic either. But it is nationalistic. Guilty as charged. Theres within g wrong with that to me.
Trump isn’t the greater of the two evils to me. He IS the evil itself. And he’s not a serious man.
And I can’t vote for a man who I don’t take seriously as a man or politician. The Presidency is a political job, and I want a politician in the job.
I’m not enamored with the idea of a businessman running the country. That whole notion was foolhardy to begin with. Not to mention that he’s a halfassed businessman at best anyway.
Trump isn’t the greater of the two evils to me. He IS the evil itself. And he’s not a serious man.
And I can’t vote for a man who I don’t take seriously as a man or politician. The Presidency is a political job, and I want a politician in the job.
I’m not enamored with the idea of a businessman running the country. That whole notion was foolhardy to begin with. Not to mention that he’s a halfassed businessman at best anyway.
I agree a businessman shouldn't run the country, but why is a politician any better?
No, but the United States has consistently put the nation’s (and its citizens) welfare second to the interests of other nations. It’s what we do best.
And you’ve voted for plenty of people who advocated for such nonsense. So why are you preaching to me? Preach to the people who sent 4500 Americans to their deaths in Iraq. Whose welfare were they fighting for because it damn sure wasn’t for MY welfare. Yours either.
Nationalism isn’t the opposite of globalism, and the two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Again, you live in a nation that consistently works for the betterment of other nations over the betterment of their own nation.
What? That nationalism is stupid? I base it on committed so-called nationalists themselves.
Nationalism isn’t well represented. When it’s represented by people who are at least one level above dirtbags and lowlifes, then I’ll be receptive to listening to what they have to say.
Nationalism itself and the people who claim to take it up as a personal philosophy.
Again, you keep talking about nationalism and globalism as if they don’t peacefully coexist. I beg to differ.
Advocating for dumbass wars and promoting belligerence with nations that are no danger to you (but are “supposedly” a danger to your ally/allies) is also globalism....especially when the danger is highly exaggerated and the hostility is mostly manufactured.
Most of these so called “nationalists” on this thread are huge supporters of plutocrats, oligarchs, and international corporatocracy. The object of their affection isn’t REALLY the nation, but the monied interests in the nation although they have little money themselves. They’re besotted with loud talking nincompoops like Trump and they hail him as some kind of nationalist when he’s nothing of the sort. He’s just a self interested gasbag.
These folks aren’t really nationalists, but they talk a good game though.
If you favor putting the interests of others ahead of your own family's interests and, if you support permitting others to make the rules by which you and your family must live, then let's do this. I'll move into your home and take your room and your bed. As well, you provide me with food, transportation and spending money. Oh yea, and I set all the rules in the house. Since you oppose nationalism, you should be willing to go along with my idea. Where do you live so that I can make arrangements to sell my place and move in with you?
I believe in the exact opposite. I view the United States as an exclusive club.
The United States must strengthen its borders and make sure to prevent illegal foreigners from coming into this country who are not wanted.
Why?
I will say that the welfare state messes things up when it comes to immigration. Ideally, anyone should be able to move wherever they want if the property owner agrees to rent or sell to them...but the fact that we're having our resources taken away, and people are coming here to take some of those resources....it makes it a tougher situation.
But state intervention is the root of the problem. Incentivize people to come here for liberty, not state programs or resources, and immigration won't be a problem.
It depends. I'm against having "countries" as they exist today (nation-states), but I fully believe in establishing and maintaining a culture. I want the culture to be as anti-authoritarian as possible, and to respect everyone's property rights.
Long story short, it doesn't matter where you live, where you're from, what you look like, who you are....same rules and standards apply to every single person in existence. National borders are irrelevant. Culture is what matters.
I'll take a hodgepodge of people from around the world who believe in non-aggression and property rights over the people in my surrounding area who believe in running their neighbors' lives by force and taking their resources for their own goals. Geography doesn't matter.
A border-less free market world based on consumption will have no culture, except by way of mass media.
A border-less free market world based on consumption will have no culture, except by way of mass media.
Disagree...although I don't know what you're referring to when you say based on consumption. It's not fundamentally based on anything other than letting people interact as they wish without a third party intervening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
