Posted on 09/26/2016 12:11:41 PM PDT by Trump_vs_Evil_Witch
Until recently, you didn’t hear people being referred to as “globalist” very often. But in a time of rising nationalism, those who see the upside of globalism have become a distinct — and often embattled — tribe.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
Nationalism is the antidote. And you are parsing words. Patriotism is loyalty to your nation first. Nationalism is the same concept. Nationalism doesn’t mean you are running around screwing other nations, though that is what people are trying to push on us.
American simply means American interests come first for Americans...nothing else. Conversely, Saudi interests come first for a Saudi. Deals are made when they are mutually beneficial.
I want nationalism.
The left has made nationalism a dirty word. It isn’t.
Look you globalist dupes the countries we trade with are all using nationalism to take jobs from us. Fair trade is not fair.
Big kickback stuff...grants - help from 'friends'... BIG money on the line... The globalist don't give a damn about anything beyond graft. Notice how none of them are feeling the starving children in South America? No kickbacks - no help.
Drivel
Or not
“But he sought to deny the inevitability of tension between globalism and nationalism, pointing to the example of a program he recently visited that was building nanosatellites at Morehead State University in eastern Kentucky. Kentucky benefits from the program, but so, he argued, might Kenya, where the satellites could, for instance, detect and help combat the trade in phony medicines.
“When opportunities are increased in one part of the world,” Mr. Clinton said, “there are often positive effects where you might least expect them.””
Gosh, Bill Clinton pointed out how wrong I’ve been. That nanosatellite program must emply tens of thousands!! The jackass.
Engagement in an honest dialogue with the other side does not actually appear to be an option despite the repeated calls for dialogue, that term itself having been twisted to mean "we speak, you listen and agree and oh, by the way, apologize as well". It would mean honesty toward those they have dishonestly derided as "right-wing extremists" at every opportunity. That simply isn't in the cards.
We are now informed that the old drive for world government under an unelected and unaccountable elite has been cast under the new rubric of "Clinton Global Initiative", soon likely to be retitled "0bama Global Initiative" so that its opponents can be dismissed as racists as well as Nazis, and, with Mrs. Clinton hopefully looking for work by then, misogynists also. We can hardly wait.
There are, to be sure, real problems to be faced, but the concentration on only those that tend to accumulate more power for the globalists - the soi-disant "Climate Change" for one - has become a little too obvious. And the denial to face any that threaten that power - the current murderous racist oppression in Zimbabwe and South Africa, for example, are conveniently ignored as irrelevant, which they are if power to the globalists is enhanced by that oppression - that too has become a little too obvious. The people calling for One World seem inordinately fond of playing one part of it against another, do they not?
And the Internet came of age and Americans started talking. A giant 24/7 open town hall meeting not controlled by big corrupt media. It's why the globalist now see the Internet and freedom of speech, as a threat want to control it and regulate it.
They're big problem came along with the Internet and Trump. A smart, independent non-insider with big $ who wasn't owned by them and couldn't be pushed around by them.
In addition, Trumps welded bond with tens of millions his supporters is historic and has not been seen in modern American history. You’d have to dial back to the founders to see this level of relationship between a leader and the people.
They have real big problem here. They're going to lose big.
Many on this forum would call anyone talking about "globalists" or "globalism" a conspiracy kook only a few months before Trump entered the race and opened the subjects of immigration and bad trade deals like no one since Buchanan.
The globalist issues have been there for at least 25 or 30 years and half or more of Americans have been increasingly dissatisfied with the direction of the country. It just took the right sort of big personality and fearlessness to those issues them into the public debate more effectively than anyone ever has.
You nailed it on both accounts.
I think 100 years from now people will write about how the globalist conspiracy was undone by the wild west of the internet.
And they would like to get the guns, but as important as that seems, they would rather grab and control the internet much more badly.
All the guns on earth don’t matter if opposing information cannot move freely and rapidly. Without this network, designed specifically to survive a nuclear war, we would be easy to roll up one by one...turning guns into an increasingly restricted and dying option. That’s how it happened in England. One law, after another, after another,,,followed by a generation or two of kids that didn’t grow up around them. Then do the final round up.
We all wait for the national guard to try confiscation from a standing start and think we will all resist. Meanwhile, that round up day never comes, and we sit idly while the internet is slowly being strangled. When it becomes fully controlled, dealing with guns is as easy as heavy restrictions, and waiting for a generation to die.
“The left has made nationalism a dirty word?”
Yes they did. And to an astonishing number of people it is a synonym for fascist Nazi. That is why they have been successful in convincing enormous numbers of people that Trump = Hitler.
They will lose, and lose hard. But yes, nationalism is a word that is not respectable outside the Trump movement.
Once the media monopoly went away, people were able to easily come into contact with large number of people who thought JUST LIKE THEM.
And they discovered that the media is densely populated by people WHO ARE NOT REALLY FROM THE USA.
The internet has been important, but who do you think the Republican nominee would have been had Trump not entered the race? Which of the globalist Republicans would have been the nominee?
There were no non-globalist candidates other than Trump.
or cow flatulence
cows never had flatulence before the new millennium.
prior to that they ate beeno in a well balanced diet /sarc
When the people are ready a leader will appear. If not Mr Trump, who? You perhaps.
“The reason is simple——God’s people ARE PRAYING AGAINST YOU. “
None of us could top your answer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.