Right? Now, donning protective garb:
But ... who was it, who referred to patriotic Americans who wanted our borders to actually be borders:
"Vigilantes"?
Sure Bush isn't Soros. The RINO establishment, isn't the Soros left.
But if the RINO establishment is pretty much against American sovereignty, against American borders, against American jobs.................
How much difference really, is there? And if there's really not much difference between the two?
How exactly are voters, supposed to choose between them?
AMERICA FIRST.
Yep - the difference is the techniques and path to their ultimate goal. Also, Leftist globalists and globalists on the right have a bit different picture of the end result. Both are just as dangerous.
Yep - the difference is the techniques and path to their ultimate goal. Also, Leftist globalists and globalists on the right have a bit different picture of the end result. Both are just as dangerous.
But they are for sale.
Only in theory. They both end up the same place.
It is an important difference that often people don't look at when they just see the word Global and judge it all the same. Globalism is philosophical one-world of whom believe we should give up our sovereignty to a global authority. Globalization is an economic term that simply acknowledges the reality of international trade due to improved transportation and communication and working within that. The latter doesn't require any giving up of sovereignty while the former is based upon it.
Now, among the right and the left, the two different ideas often merge but they aren't the same. Too often, however, those of the latter are judged by the beliefs of the former.
Global socialism is still socialism no matter who pushes it.
The only difference I see is that the DemonRats are open about their intentions and the RINO’s lie about it.
Yep, think about it, the Border has not even come close to being secured, we enter into agreements that are harmful to national interests via relenquishing Sovereignty to foreign bodies such as GATT and other quasi “courts”.
And that has come from both Dhimmis and R’s whilst in the Presidency, this is Official Policy not the agenda of merely one President or group of Senators.
The really funny thing is, Fleece Trade advocates truly do believe they can have “just” the Trade and not the other things that come along with it, such as Global Warming Treaties that any fool can see are massively destructive to the US.
Ever ask oneself “why” such insane deals persist in between Administrations? Clinton dearly wanted the Kyoto Accords to be ratified, 20 yrs later and here are “Agreements on Global Climate Change” being floated.
The UN Millenium Goals are still alive and well BTW.
Well, the way I see it, the establishment is the establishment. For political expediency, they have to disagree on some issues in public, so that there can be a mock rivalry between the two sides. However, in private, most career politicos surely realize that they have more common interests with the politicos on the other side of the aisle than they do with their own constituents. So, it’s only natural that they pursue some common goals that benefit their own interests. By not opposing each other on these issues, they also avert controversy and keep those pet issues out of the public discourse for the most part.
The same thing happens in most faux democracies, like Venezuela or Iran, but then it’s usually pretty transparent. I think American politicians are a little more restrained by our Constitution, so they have had to become more sophisticated at keeping up the masquerade.
Both sides advance the globalist agenda for different reasons which appeal to the worldview and special interests of their constituents, each advancing policies which would be vehemently unpalatable to their supporting masses if the other side had proposed them, sugar coated with emergency and necessity and decency, but always with the same result: the loss of freedom at home and the degredation of our Constitutional Republic.
It wasn't a liberal who first mouthed the words "New World Order" on my TV, but Ronald Reagan's former Vice President.
The globalists on the right want all the money and control to go to the already rich...The rich will rule...
We peons live like the Chinese...No pensions, unemployment benefits, no social security, lowest wages possible...
The leftist globalists want everyone to be controlled by the gov’t...
The leftists are a little more pro people...
Those on the right care only about the money...
It’s a disaster for us, either way...
Corporate socialism vs. state socialism. There are a lot of differences but both are evil liberty-robbing visions of some kind of man-made utopia.
There are no globalists on the right.
There are, however leftists in the Republican party, and have been since at least the 50s and 60s when they - not Democrats led the move to destroy small agriculture and raisen up ADM & Monsanto etc... through government regulation.
No. By definition, any totalitarian objective is Leftist. If one is seeking to curtail personal freedoms and national sovereignty, that is a Leftist movement.
Once and for all, the Left=Socialist and Right=GOP spectrum is trash.
The political “spectrum is a cone” individual liberty is at the top of that cone and all forms of statism (monarchy, dictatorship, socialist democracy, theocracy, etc.) pool around the base of the cone.
So is there much of a difference as you go around the base? No. But there is no comparison between the top and the bottom.
Flavors of Globalism bump for later..........