Are you a Republican or Democrat? Shame on you

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

It is a gang fight. The problem is people thinking they are apart of the Democrat or Republican gang.

You should start your own gang, because those people give two fucks about you.

Yes

 

[Trotsky]

How will Gorsuch and Kavanugh makje dark money even darker?

Uhhh, by further rolling back reporting and disclosure requirements, loosening or abolishing contribution limits, and opening up new avenues for it

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Registered Libertarian

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yes

Naw.

We can do better. How about communist libertarianism?

When fussion and robots get here, you use the state to build libertarian decentralized self governing cities, and communities.

I spent about 2 seconds thinking about that theory, and it is superior to communism.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Globalism is not "international trade and investment" but rather an agenda to continously forfeit an ever increasing amount of American soveriegnty, wealth, and prosperity to international powers and orders. Some people pursue this agenda out of a naive "social justice" world view while others are pursuing an ulterior motive of setting up a one world government and issuing in the antichrist

Either way it's bad policy.

Uh, yeah, globalism is international trade and investment, I already posted the dictionary definition in a reply to someone else.

Who is advocating for / How are we giving up American sovereignty, wealth, and prosperity to international powers and orders?

 

[gassius_clay]

That's not at all close to the dictionary definition of globalist, which is :
glob·al·ist
ˈɡlōbəlist/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.

adjective

1. 1.
   relating to or advocating the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.

But, assuming your definition, what are these things that are put before the interests of the nation by globalists that make them different from other candidates?

Why ask me the definition if you're just going to quote the online dictionary definition? Regardless I don't believe planning an economic and foreign policy at the global level is putting the interests of a nation first.

 

[bad seed]

Did you really just post graphs with measurements of average unity score?

What does 1 unit of unity look like?

How does one measure that?

it's a very simple metric to measure partisan voting.
https://towardsdatascience.com/political-partisanship-a-look-at-the-data-e71946199586

 

[IReallyDoTrainUFC]

Uh, yeah, globalism is international trade and investment, I already posted the dictionary definition in a reply to someone else.

Who is advocating for / How are we giving up American sovereignty, wealth, and prosperity to international powers and orders?

One way is selling American debt. More countries are owning an increasing share of America because our government can't stop hoisting trillions of dollars of debt on our children through new wars and new entitlements.

 

[VivaRevolution]

it's a very simple metric to measure partisan voting.
https://towardsdatascience.com/political-partisanship-a-look-at-the-data-e71946199586

Still stupid. What if you are a Republican, but are a non-interventionist. Saying Rand Paul is the same as Lindsey Graham because they vote the same 99% of the time, is absurd as far as that voter is concerned.

 

[gassius_clay]

Uh, yeah, globalism is international trade and investment, I already posted the dictionary definition in a reply to someone else.

Nowhere in the definition your posted did it suggest globalism is limited to international trade and investment,

 

[VivaRevolution]

Nowhere in the definition your posted did it suggest globalism is limited to international trade and investment,

Where did he say it was limited to?

Part of, and limited to, are completely different statements.

 

[gassius_clay]

Where did he say it was limited to?

Part of, and limited to, are completely different statements.

Yeah, its a part of it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It actually should be the highest priority. Trump did zero to improve this, as expected. What good would voting for Hillary Clinton have done? Do you honestly believe Hillary would have stepped in the White House in 2016 and prioritized getting money out of politics? Neither would address such an issue and that is something that we all should be asking why, and what do we do about it.

I disagree that it's a significant issue, but Clinton's appointments would be far more sympathetic to your view.

 

[bad seed]

Still stupid. What if you are a Republican, but are a non-interventionist. Saying Rand Paul is the same as Lindsey Graham because they vote the same 99% of the time, is absurd as far as that voter is concerned.

exceptions like Rand Paul do not fortify your argument. And he still votes along party lines aside from the rare instances that it conflicts with his libertarian foundation.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Why ask me the definition if you're just going to quote the online dictionary definition?

I was just trying to show you the dictionary definition to show that there is a strict definition. If we're all on the same page in regards to definitions then it's easier to understand each other in the long run.

I don't believe planning an economic and foreign policy at the global level is putting the interests of a nation first.

So we turn our backs on the world stage and ignore the wants / needs and of foreign nations when crafting our foreign policy (which at this point, is merely trade policy because we no longer care what happens with the rest of the world) and the rest of the world goes to war and/ or Europe is severely weakened in some conflict which we stay out of. Now a bunch of countries have fallen to some unknown enemy who begins to gain footholds in Canada and Mexico and we're barricaded and surrounded.

Was it in our best interests to ignore what is happening in the rest of the world?

Let's take war out of the equation. Let's say some other country develops some big new technology (a wild thought, right? That some other country could possibly develop something that we didn't think of first.) and they don't like us because of how we've been acting and they purposely sell to everyone but us and we lose our economic dominance because we weren't invited to the party. Now people are scrambling to climb Trump's wall and flee to Mexico for better economic opportunities and a better life.

Are we stronger because we bullied our way out of the global community?

 

[VivaRevolution]

exceptions like Rand Paul do not fortify your argument. And he still votes along party lines aside from the rare instances that it conflicts with his libertarian foundation.

Ok, how about a Texas Democrat, or California Republican, for state office?

Still doesn't matter?

You think all those California Republicans should be fine voting for pro-choice, anti-big energy, aka Republicans in name only, candidates?

 

[BangersAndSmash]

It actually should be the highest priority. Trump did zero to improve this, as expected. What good would voting for Hillary Clinton have done? Do you honestly believe Hillary would have stepped in the White House in 2016 and prioritized getting money out of politics? Neither would address such an issue and that is something that we all should be asking why, and what do we do about it.

The democrats are quickly shifting to making this an important issue. It was a big part of Bernie's platform, and it's been a big part of many of the newer democratic candidates. Hillary is nothing if she's not a wind vane that blows in the direction of popular polling, show her a poll that shows that people want money out of politics (democrats were the ones who opposed citizen united) and she'd shift her stance to be more in line with the party.

 

[bad seed]

Ok, how about a Texas Democrat, or California Republican, for state office?

Still doesn't matter?

obviously it will matter less the more local their office.

 

[jrams]

The democrats are quickly shifting to making this an important issue. It was a big part of Bernie's platform, and it's been a big part of many of the newer democratic candidates. Hillary is nothing if she's not a wind vane that blows in the direction of popular polling, show her a poll that shows that people want money out of politics (democrats were the ones who opposed citizen united) and she'd shift her stance to be more in line with the party.

She and Bill were the ones that got corporate money in the Democratic party. I disagree that she'd be a weather vane on that position.

 

[gassius_clay]

So we turn our backs on the world stage and ignore the wants / needs and of foreign nations when crafting our foreign policy (which at this point, is merely trade policy because we no longer care what happens with the rest of the world) and the rest of the world goes to war and/ or Europe is severely weakened in some conflict which we stay out of. Now a bunch of countries have fallen to some unknown enemy who begins to gain footholds in Canada and Mexico and we're barricaded and surrounded.

Was it in our best interests to ignore what is happening in the rest of the world?

If Europe and other countries are refusing to pay their fair share in military spending (nato) then damn straight. Our country and people are being hurt significantly from our insane military budget. If we need to be the world's police force than there should a world tax to pay for it. Although admittedly this is a huge problem on both the left and the right.

Let's take war out of the equation. Let's say some other country develops some big new technology (a wild thought, right? That some other country could possibly develop something that we didn't think of first.) and they don't like us because of how we've been acting and they purposely sell to everyone but us and we lose our economic dominance because we weren't invited to the party. Now people are scrambling to climb Trump's wall and flee to Mexico for better economic opportunities and a better life.

Are we stronger because we bullied our way out of the global community?

I'm not worried about this. We're the most innovative country in the world with one of the largest economies. I just dont see it to be realistic that a country would try to cut out. It would be bad business and if they did we would develop a better version of whatever it is.

Aside from the few things you listed I would consider our lack of border a globalism issue and the amount of international aid to be another big issue.