Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by shinji, Nov 30, 2016.
Probably the biggest issue is that even business leaders and socialists think the government is incompetent and out of touch.
Nationalism rises rapidly recently, accelerated by Trump "make America great again" campaign. Unfortunately, this process will not hurt one person or two, but millions, or even billions.
I fear the final product of extreme nationalism is endless world war, or "infinite wars" and what I see in ソラノヲト could become true, in a slightly different form.
I think civil war in many countries is more likely than fighting between countries to be honest.
Nationalist politics never went away. They've always been there. They can be buried in complex structures that work well when times are good but when different pressure is applied to such complex top down structures they start to degrade. A good example is the UK itself. It's a political and monetary union that has existed for hundreds of years. Its can be argued that its probably been one of the most successful of such unions - yet in the last 50 years the pressures on the union have changed (oil, the formation of the EU etc etc) and very quickly nationalist politics rises to the fore. As anyone who lives here will testify they've always, always been here but economic imbalances buried them. (Now, one can argue as to whose nationalist politics are benign and whose aren't but that would miss my point!)
Nassim Taleb's new book 'Antifragility' is very good on this subject and well worth reading. Even if you don't agree with him its pretty thought provoking. I think he would argue that you can use a rule of thumb that anything that has stood the test of time (many nation states) will endure as they have been repeatedly tested over the last millennia in many cases, hundreds of years in others) but the jury is out on modern top down complex structures such as the EU.
1) The United States is the greatest nation in the world.
2) The United States government should look out for Americans first.
3) American jobs should stay in America.
4) Only American citizens have an inherent right to live in the United States.
Am I a nationalist?
Added to the reading list, many thanks for the suggestion. One question: is the correct title "Antifragile"?
As for yours "Even if you don't agree with him its pretty thought provoking," this is the best kind of books. I often say that in order to find agreement with my own opinions I don't need anyone else than myself; I always agree with me.
--- Post Merged, Nov 30, 2016 ---
Can you please expand on #4?
--- Post Merged, Nov 30, 2016 ---
Not really IMO.
Oh, yes - correct! Its Antifragile!
If you haven't read it I would try Black Swan first. He can be quite obnoxious both as an author and a character but challenging and interesting.
Pan-European war in 3-2-1....
Not really. It's a simple declarative sentence.
Mostly not, but note that point 4 contradicts international treaties about accepting refugees that the US Congress has ratified. In short, legally point 4 is incorrect.
The sentence is simple, the problem is not. I am curious about the definition you give to "inherent right". I am not trying to provoke you, I am seriously trying to understand what you're saying.
I don't think you're going to get the armed forces to cooperate enough to get that far. I think we'll all tell the government to **** off and stop being so useless.
I'm not trying to be a dick, either. Let me rephrase it: if you're not a U.S. citizen the United States government can revoke your residency and expel you.
ah ok, it's what I suspected. 100% agree with you.
I wish I had your faith in fellow human beings.
When I speak to socialists or even councillors or speak to business directors they say (paraphrased) **** the government.
That is a step before civil war not a step before intra-country conflict.
Why the **** would I go to war with France when the British government is so clueless it wants to ban porn?
And people vote Farage or Trump as a middle finger up to the establishment. Not because they like them particularly.
This removes all attempts of trying to immigrate to United States completely.
Not true at all. It simply regulates it.
So we consume exceeded population ourselves, within each country until we reach new equilibrium and everyone is happy? Well, seems that Mother Nature does the same on various species. Perhaps it is required in some points.
Being a refugee isn't an inherent property.
Any country can revoke refugee status.
Regulates it? We all know that currently not everyone can immigrate to United States. Wait, you mean those deemed to be "illegal immigrants"?
I am still struggling to understand "inherited" but sounds like, well, uh.
What should I say?
Not inherited. He said inherent.