USA elections 2020 - 2021

[alhoon]

This is a false dichotomy. Multiculturalism and globalism are good for a country, more than nationalism is.

I 65% disagree. Not completely. You see, I don't want every country to be an island for its own people. But my view is mostly (but not completely): "Look buddy, we do things this way here. If you don't like it, go somewhere else that do things the way you like it".
Example: A few of the illegal immigrants rescued didn't consider the food Greece gave them religiously proper and some were offended that we had crosses on the beaches they (illegally) landed or there were Christian churches on the camps they were placed. Ohh... sucks to be them. They can go back to their countries if they don't want that food or they are offended that the camps they were being held had a church. Nobody asked them to come here illegally. Here in Chania illegal immigrants torn down one of the small εκκλησακια (small shrines where you put a candle) that we put on the street where traffic accidents claim lives. Nope, I don't want to enrich our cultural traditions with PC rubbish that supports that we remove the churches to not offend 5% of the illegal immigrants (you see, most immigrants were fine with the churches.) Another example is Sweden with the struggles over child marriage ... which was considered only because of the muslims.
I am also kinda-pro free trade. But globalism is more than just free trade. I also kinda disagree that multi-culti has greater long-term returns as I believe that "preservation of national identity, long-held traditions, cultural norms and viewpoints" is on itself a very important boon and a long-term gain.
All in all I am a moderate anti-globalist.

And to come back to what I started at: With Trump's Republican Circus on the wheel, they won't be able to push too far to get us back in the 1920s when it comes to nationalism. It will simply roll back the crap that is going on with the washing away of national identity and pandering to different cultures, religions and values. Then, the Democrats will show up and push towards multi-culti again. Then back to anti-globalists etc
That way, the "balance" would move more slowly, in smaller steps. There will be 3 steps ahead, 2 steps back and in the end I am more optimistic that it will work better.

This is extreme even for a nationalist view.

Yes, many of us think of that about certain posts here and I most certainly don't mean yours Basilius.

The world has never been as peaceful or prosperous as it is now, which are the benefits of the last 80 years of a globalist superstructure.

Weeeeell... the world has also never been as morally gray, as leader-deficient, as snowflake-rich (including here the conservative snowflakes, not just the progressive snowflakes) and as decadent as it is now. Also, as mentioned erosion of traditions and national identity is a loss IMO.
We literally live in an era where the number of genders is openly being disputed and incest is becoming legalized.

[Heathen Hammer]

You don't need globalism for free market, nor do you need to force free trade on absolutely everyone for it to work. Not to mention that limits to free trade aren't necessarily bad, I don't see anything wrong with having state step on some cosmopolitan billionaire's throat when he tries to do outsourcing or bring in millions of immigrants to just to gain slightly higher profits.
In general "nothing but economic output matters" (as it is for both marxism and capitalism) is an incredibly outdated and somewhat anti-human idea.
If we want to preserve our planet and environment, if we want to preserve incredible and vibrant cultures of various nations around the world, if we want to prevent more globalist wars like world wars of past century - then we have to end globalism as practice and most importantly address the above idea as fundamentally wrong.

[Basilius]

I believe that "preservation of national identity, long-held traditions, cultural norms and viewpoints" is on itself a very important boon and a long-term gain.

While this sounds reasonable, it brings up a million questions. How do we establish what those identities, traditions, and viewpoints are? How do we enforce their preservation? How do we slow their change, not just without, but form within (i.e.m from its citizens)? How do we account for sub cultures?

I would respond that people should only retain norms and viewpoints to the extent they're persuaded by them, not for the sake of preservation itself.

Nope, I don't want to enrich our cultural traditions with PC rubbish that supports that we remove the churches to not offend 5% of the illegal immigrants (you see, most immigrants were fine with the churches.)

Laws seem to be able to handle this vocal minority just fine. Same in Sweden and elsewhere. Just tell them "no."

_____________________________________________________________________________

Not to mention that limits to free trade aren't necessarily bad

Outside of protecting blossoming industries in developing countries, tariffs fall primarily on consumers and are a disastrous and regressive tax. One of the few pillars of modern economics are 0 tariffs.

In general "nothing but economic output matters" (as it is for both marxism and capitalism) is an incredibly outdated and somewhat anti-human idea.

Free trade agreements like the TPP included provisions for labor rights.

If we want to preserve our planet and environment

We implement climate change solutions, like the Paris Accord.

if we want to preserve incredible and vibrant cultures of various nations around the world

Cultures have always been a part of creative destruction. This whole notion of "preserving cultures" is ahistorical and mythological.

[Heathen Hammer]

I would not say that the US, Brazil, Mexico, India, and the UK listened to the WHO all that carefully.

Which is what saved them from disaster. For example the globalist clown that we have for prime minister here continued giving them funding even after it was revealed that they intentionally misinformed everyone while covering up for communist regime in China.

Calling the Central and Axis Powers, and Soviet Untion, all "globalist" is ahistorical.

geopolitical policy in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence.

Sounds like ideology of all of these alliances to me.

I agree race wars are bad. So why blame multiculturalism instead of tribalism and racism?

Tribalism and racism themselves are result of multiculturalism.

This is extreme even for a nationalist view. The world has never been as peaceful or prosperous as it is now,

That's just denial of reality, my dude. World is ed. Look at state of the environment, all the current wars, populations being treated like crap (in West and abroad).
Saying "this is fine" while the world around you is on fire is meme-worthy and delusional.

Outside of protecting blossoming industries in developing countries, tariffs fall primarily on consumers and are a disastrous and regressive tax. One of the few pillars of modern economics are 0 tariffs.

That only benefits a marginal part of population at expense of everyone else.

Free trade agreements like the TPP included provisions for labor rights.

That sure works for those slave children in sweatshops making you r Ipads, running shoes and other things globalists like so much.

We implement climate change solutions, like the Paris Accord.

Those are not solutions, just a pledge that never addressed the actual issue. It is fair to say that doing empty gestures for "good cause" while maintaining system which is the reason behind why the cause is there in the first place is MO of globalists.

Cultures have always been a part of creative destruction. This whole notion of "preserving cultures" is ahistorical and mythological.

I don't consider my nation's country a mythology. Not do most people int he world. It seems you need to expand your knowledge on such subjects before you make such ignorant statements.

[alhoon]

While this sounds reasonable, it brings up a million questions. How do we establish what those identities, traditions, and viewpoints are? How do we enforce their preservation? How do we slow their change, not just without, but form within (i.e.m from its citizens)? How do we account for sub cultures?

Short answer: Schools.
Long answer: Not an easy question but it is much much easier if 95%+ of the people are of the same national and cultural identity. Thus, you gain by keeping multi-culti out.
But this is not feasible in USA (which this thread is about) because it is a nation of immigrants. So, I will go with "find a school curriculum for each state and follow it, instead of changing it every few years".

Laws seem to be able to handle this vocal minority just fine. Same in Sweden and elsewhere. Just tell them "no."

You see... Sweden did toy with the idea of acknowledging child brides as legal for immigrants until in 2018 the nationalists pushed hard enough to say "no" and it was finally put to rest.
And our previous government and a great many globalist NGOs were not saying "no" to that vocal minority. The defaced shrine next to the Technical university of Crete was never repaired because the local mayor said it would provoke that vocal minority of illegal immigrants. So the parents of the student that was killed there had to suck it up in the name of tolerance.
But it doesn't stop there. It's not just the illegal immigrants. The rich Europeans with their vegetarianism and animal-rights crap that live here or visit here also bring their weird (for us) culinary traditions. Vegetarian diners in Crete is very weird and, if I may... disgraceful pandering to rich Euros that want more reasons to look down their nose on other people and decide that not eating meat and eggs is a worthy sacrifice to achieve that goal.
European standards forced countless of tiny Raki manufactories to close. 20 years ago, every few rural houses had a boiler to make homemade Raki. That's now illegal. It is not enforced well but it is illegal. This is a case of the laws hurting tradition instead of protecting it.

[Basilius]

Respectively Alhoon this feels like a motte and bailey argument. You start by casting doubt on multiculturalism and when pressed retreat to complaining about extremists and marginal events. Kowtowing to extremists is not necessary for multiculturalism, and your reply about "schools" resembles indoctrination.

[Heathen Hammer]

The bottom line is that the current elite's ideology does more harm then good and so does its attempts to fix the wrongs it creates. Hence why more people around the world chose to oppose it, especially in the West, whose population has been greatly harmed and faces injustice from current order of things.

[Coughdrop addict]

I think you're reading your own post wrong.

The Republicans have turned from the Conservatives into the Party of Trump. Their usual values have gone out the window. Hell for the past twelve years they've been more interested in winning than they have in their conservative values. This can be seen in how the Tea Party has done their value 180 from what it was to go in lockstep with Trump. But without the House they can pass nothing. Without values, they can have the Senate only pass Judicial nominees. Without values they can't pass appropriate legislation and lob those PR bombs at the Democrats for tabling the legislation.

The slavish devotion to Trump is something I'll never understand. Trump is LITERALLY a RINO. He has been a Democrat or Independent for most of his life, and certainly has never cared about any of the principles that the Republican party (allegedly) believes in. But for some reason I'll never understand they decided to make him the arbiter of what it means to be a Republican.

Now anyone who doesn't support unconstitutional orders, stepping on congressional authority or state's rights, ballooning deficits, anti-trade tariffs, interfering with free market capitalism, or kowtowing to Russian interests is called a RINO.

[alhoon]

Respectively Alhoon this feels like a motte and bailey argument. You start by casting doubt on multiculturalism and when pressed retreat to complaining about extremists and marginal events. Kowtowing to extremists is not necessary for multiculturalism.

I agree that Kowtowing to vocal minorities (I wouldn't call them extremists actually, we're not talking ISIS here) is not necessary for multi-culturalism. But it is more tolerated during multi-culturalism.
Never the less, multi-culturalism is by necessity against the nation-state idea and proposes greater homogenization. This leads to erosion of traditions and cultural characteristics.
Also, as mentioned I am moderate anti-globalist. I can see the merit, to a degree, but I think it moves too far, too fast.
For example, I am pro EU and pro Euro despite them being globalist initiatives and required the sacrifice of the drachma. But the erosion of sovereignty that Brussels imposes slowly is too expansive IMO. I would like to slowly regress to a somewhat less cohesive Union and less centralized economy.
If the price to pay for that is somewhat slower economic advance, so be it.

To get back to USA, the same principle applies here. In theory at least, Republicans want more power to the individual states and less federal power. I think that's a good position as far as things have progressed. I believe that USA is too large and too diverse for systems and balances that work for say New York to apply on Colorado, Wyoming or Yuta. Things are different, problems are different, the population is different.
I believe the Federal State should be more "high level" than it is. Take Obamacare for example. I like Obama and I believe there should be health insurance, mind you.
But I think the Federal government of USA should have the power to tell the states "Create a healthcare system for your state!" and then regulate how different state systems would work from state to state. Not enforce the same healthcare plan in rich New York with rural areas of Yuta and expect it to work. And that is just one example to show how Federal government of USA could become more "high level" and move more responsibilities to the state governments.

[Basilius]

Never the less, multi-culturalism is by necessity against the nation-state idea and proposes greater homogenization. This leads to erosion of traditions and cultural characteristics.

Not so! In fact it proposes greater heterogeneity by definition. What invigorates cultures is their clashing, sharing, morphing, evolving, multitudes upon multitudes so that mixtures do not create a melding pot, but infinite new cultures that rise and fall by their beauty and merit, not through attempts to crystallize and enforce specific "traditions and cultural characteristics." That is what leads to homogenization, uniformity, and stasis within nation-states.

[B. W.]

The slavish devotion to Trump is something I'll never understand. Trump is LITERALLY a RINO. He has been a Democrat or Independent for most of his life, and certainly has never cared about any of the principles that the Republican party (allegedly) believes in. But for some reason I'll never understand they decided to make him the arbiter of what it means to be a Republican.

Now anyone who doesn't support unconstitutional orders, stepping on congressional authority or state's rights, ballooning deficits, anti-trade tariffs, interfering with free market capitalism, or kowtowing to Russian interests is called a RINO.

You missed out on the political evolution. What it really is now is Globalists versus Nationalists. Trump is a nationalist running under the Republican banner. Both Bushes were globalists, Clinton was a globalist and Obama was a globalist.

[Heathen Hammer]

The slavish devotion to Trump is something I'll never understand. Trump is LITERALLY a RINO. He has been a Democrat or Independent for most of his life, and certainly has never cared about any of the principles that the Republican party (allegedly) believes in. But for some reason I'll never understand they decided to make him the arbiter of what it means to be a Republican.

Now anyone who doesn't support unconstitutional orders, stepping on congressional authority or state's rights, ballooning deficits, anti-trade tariffs, interfering with free market capitalism, or kowtowing to Russian interests is called a RINO.

Um, what? Trump is the most prominent anti-RINO Republican in party's recent history, maybe with honorable exception of Ron Paul.
RINOs like Bush, McCain and Romney hate Trump and are actively trying to sabotage their own party because of that.
Calling Trump RINO is simply delusional. Then again, most of Trump's criticism from the left is delusional, so...

[Gaidin]

To get back to USA, the same principle applies here. In theory at least, Republicans want more power to the individual states and less federal power. I think that's a good position as far as things have progressed.

Your piss poor analysis of the actual government aside...

I'm not sure you've really looked at the last fifty years of Republican party. They've been happy to shovel power into the federal government. When they've been in power. Then they rant and rave about how power should be in the states, too late, when the Democrats are elected. It's rather amusing. And it's right their in the history. And I mean, one can go into their bad habits of elections for the past sixty years and how it's ended up with their entire electorate basically being white. Not just white, but racist white and Trumpian white. It's not just a result of being Republican, but being conservative, and that leading to want to do nothing but WIN and to do anything to do it.

The demographics of America are going to keep shifting. Even if the racial demographics stay the same. Why? Because old people die. If the Republican party stays conservative they go irrelevant. Fine. That's their call. Trump is 74. He will die. Hell, even if he wins, in four years he will be irrelevant. He will be replaced by whoever gets the nomination. It will shift from the Party of Trump to the Party of Whoever Wins the Primary. The Republicans have abandoned their principles to follow their leader. Even in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016, there were arguments about what should be what and who should be who at the Convention. This is the first Republican Primary where there will be absolutely no argument from anybody.

The Republicans have no principle but to win. Been that way since 2009. Got a recording of McConnell to play for you. They don't care about the individual states and the power they have, but for the offices that they can make Republican. This is what you don't realize. There is no Republican or conservative principle anymore.

There is only Trump.

It's taken 60 years to get here since the Southern Strategy started. They are the only party to appeal to people. Not principles. Lincoln. Reagan. Trump? People, not principles. Why Trump?

They never appeal to principles. You really need to think on that. Why can the Democrat not appeal to FDR and downright steal the House from them? Why do the Democrats only need their principles? Why do the people never buy HH's crazy buybacks to the civil war era? WHY DO THE REPUBLICANS NEED LINCOLN AND REAGAN and NOT THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES? Why do they need voter roll purges instead of more voters? You as a person who doesn't understand America really needs to ponder this stuff before acting like you know.

[Sir Adrian]

This is extreme even for a nationalist view. The world has never been as peaceful or prosperous as it is now, which are the benefits of the last 80 years of a globalist superstructure. My apologies, but I don't think I can continue debating this is with you, as our knowledge base is so radically different as to prevent fruitful discussion.

The world is neither peaceful nor prosperous. Part of the world is prosperous because it consumes resources at several orders of magnitude the capacity for regeneration and gathers wealth by exploiting the poorer regions thought globalism.

You cannot seriously think that what Nestle is doing in Africa, or Bechtel in Bolivia, or basically every electronics and clothing brand are doing in India and East Asia is good. I mean come on. The only reason you get to have your Captain Crunch, iPhone and Levy's jeans is because some poor in South America, Africa or Asia is getting payed 50 cents per 12 hour workday by said major corporations.

There are numerous examples of why globalism is not a force for good in the world.

[Basilius]

You cannot seriously think that what Nestle is doing in Africa, or Bechtel in Bolivia, or basically every electronics and clothing brand are doing in India and East Asia is good. I mean come on. The only reason you get to have your Captain Crunch, iPhone and Levy's jeans is because some poor in South America, Africa or Asia is getting payed 50 cents per 12 hour workday by said major corporations.

Versus what, subsistence farming?

The notion that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is false. Extreme poverty in the past 80 years has nose-dived, in large part because of trade and economic reform in India, China, and South East Asia. The only alternative to manufacturing exports in a developing economy (transitioning to an information economy) are resource exports, which risk the country getting stuck in a "resource trap".

You're right that globalism has helped fuel carbon consumption, which should absolutely be addressed by rich countries.

[sumskilz]

For some reason I'm not hearing much about Richard Spencer's endorsement of Biden. Spencer was such a hot topic last election, why the loss of interest?

[Alwyn]

For some reason I'm not hearing much about Richard Spencer's endorsement of Biden. Spencer was such a hot topic last election, why the loss of interest?

Maybe because the Biden campaign rejected his endorsement? To be fair to him, President Elect Trump (as he then was) did disavow the support of white nationalists in late November 2016. Did his campaign reject the support of Spencer when it mattered more, before the election happened?

There seems to be plenty of coverage of Spencer's endorsement of Biden - I've been trying to find a news report on the Trump campaign's response to Richard Spencer's support for Trump during the 2016 election campaign, and all I'm finding are reports by different news outlets of Spencer's latest endorsement. I did find a report saying that Spencer stopped supporting President Trump in January 2020 because of the killing of an Iranian general, but nothing on the Trump campaign's response to Spencer's support.

I imagine someone will know how the Trump campaign responded to Spencer's support before the 2016 election happened.

[sumskilz]

There seems to be plenty of coverage of Spencer's endorsement of Biden

I didn't see anything about it until today. I was surprised it wasn't in this thread and that I hadn't seen any mention on social media, although my social media is heavily biased toward people in academia or who are from Seattle or Tel Aviv. When I searched I saw there was some coverage, but it doesn't seem to be creating a buzz.

I'm pretty sure Spencer was fairly irrelevant before the media put him in the spotlight, and he may still be, but I am curious now if white nationalists voting for the Dems might actually be a trend in the coming election, ether because of their "accelerationist" views or because they feel like Trump betrayed them.

[Sir Adrian]

Social media and mainstream media will not allow the mention of anything that might negatively affect the Biden campaign. During the DNC a bunch of idiots started looting, stealing and even shot and killed a couple of people, in Biden's name. The media said nothing even though Biden did nothing to distance himself from such people.

[PointOfViewGun]

Social media and mainstream media will not allow the mention of anything that might negatively affect the Biden campaign. During the DNC a bunch of idiots started looting, stealing and even shot and killed a couple of people, in Biden's name. The media said nothing even though Biden did nothing to distance himself from such people.

This is purely slander. Why people resort to it on an online forum is beyond me.