If you still dont think this isnt a globalist coup d'etat........

a reply to: Vector99

Why would I watch MSNBC when FOX Is the greatest news show evah?

Bullet to the back of the head. Men, women, children, babies. It will keep them from coming back, it’s hella lot cheaper than a wall, Mexico obviously won’t care since they don’t want them anyway, and we get to use guns, which are cool and awesome! Winning and MAGA!

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
a reply to: kaylaluv

EVERY ILLEGAL IS A CRIMINAL

ICE only targets criminals , the criminals come in all ages, sizes, and colors, but they are all equally guilty and gotsa go

Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, D-Minn., wore a black shirt that read, "Yo no creo en fronteras."

In English, that sentence translates to, "I don't believe in borders."

Why does the DNC allow extremist leadership then?

Being here illegally is no more a crime than speeding. I guess you consider those criminals too that need to be punished to full extent of the law?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Well, its probably worth noting that while very few DNC members are NEARLY activist enough to be as effective as necessary at crushing the fascism around them, which ought to be the job of any good liberal minded person, there are a fairly significant number of RNC members and officials, who have history with the Klan and with other very questionable groups and activities.

In short, the lunatics on the right, get a whole load closer to the keys to the asylum, than those on the left do. Something tells me that this is because lefties have better standards, but that could be bias (or just overwhelming evidence) talking.

a reply to: openminded2011

Here are two visions of the future, both extreme:

1] Political, ethnic, and religious differences have been peacefully resolved. Everyone respects their fellow human beings, whatever their creed, color, or gender. Goods and services flow freely across the globe, eliminating poverty and want. There is no need for controlled borders.

2] Political, ethnic, and religious differences lead to increasingly violent conflicts. No-one respects anyone outside their "tribe." Countries refuse to trade, leading to poverty and war. Nations throw up armed borders, and shoot anyone who approaches.

Which do you prefer? The first is the endgame described in the OP. The latter is the endgame this nationalistic, protectionist administration seems to be working towards.

a reply to: DJW001

The strategy used by all today will create the second choice.

Is America more or less racially divided than it was in 2000? How about 2005?

Who has driven this change?

Hint: if you've picked a team, your on the wrong team.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: openminded2011



2] Political, ethnic, and religious differences lead to increasingly violent conflicts. No-one respects anyone outside their "tribe." Countries refuse to trade, leading to poverty and war. Nations throw up armed borders, and shoot anyone who approaches.

Which do you prefer? The first is the endgame described in the OP. The latter is the endgame this nationalistic, protectionist administration seems to be working towards.

This administration also has a posse of devoted and loyal followers that seem to think this option number 2 is desirable. I find that somewhat disturbing.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Hint: if you've picked a team, your on the wrong team.

I feel like I'm on the side watching a massive rugby scrum struggle up and down the field without cessation. I want to laugh at the absurdity, but non-recognition of their own banality simultaneously makes the spectical very unfunny.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I have a problem with things being wrong. I defend Trump against what has every appearance of being a rogue government leaking made up nonsense. It seems like its the same folks who spy on all of us. And i dont like that at all.

Otherwise....i dont really like the guy. But dont have too many complaints about his performance.

nm

a reply to: kaylaluv

No, but white nationalist are less and less accepted every year, while these people are getting more mainstream every year. Big time Democrats have worn shirts saying I don't believe in borders.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: kaylaluv

No, but white nationalist are less and less accepted every year,

Thats a damned lie. Since the Cheeto in Chief was elected, white nationalism is on the rise, not the decline, and at some stage it stopped being legal to simply shoot Nazis, so they are actually more accepted now than they have been in some significant time. I think you might want to take a closer look at the world around you, if you think the nonsense you posted is accurate. Put simply, white nationalism cannot be less and less accepted every year, because if it were less and less accepted every year, IT WOULDN'T HAVE WON THE PRESIDENCY FOR TRUMP!

while these people are getting more mainstream every year. Big time Democrats have worn shirts saying I don't believe in borders.

Big time Republicans have been associated with the KKK... One of those ideologies is ACTUALLY dangerous, the other wears shirts that give the finger to borders.

I am not saying that some of the more radical ones don’t want open or no borders, but the people I know supporting abolition of ICE say it’s not to get rid of immigration controls but to restructure relevant agencies and provide better oversight. I had this exact debate with them.

At the same time, it comes across as still political grandstanding and unnecessary even if one is reform minded.

A better message is reasonable reform of existing agencies and enforcement, not “abolish Ice.”
a reply to: openminded2011

a reply to: TrueBrit

Sorry, fake news, white nationalist have gained zero mainstream support. Zero. Republicans ask the msm to ignore them. Meanwhile top rank Democrats are showing support for no borders.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Wait did I read right you think anyone who says they are a new Nazi should immediately be shot and killed?

Disgusting.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, you didn't read right.

You read what you wanted to see. As usual, you are totally missing the point. Bully for you.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, you didn't read right.

You read what you wanted to see. As usual, you are totally missing the point. Bully for you.

Pretty sure I did.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
and at some stage it stopped being legal to simply shoot Nazis, so they are actually more accepted now than they have been in some significant time.

a reply to: openminded2011

So this begs the question, what exactly will our country be without borders?

Part of the world. Same as always

What's wrong with globalists?

That would be me - begging you to give me a real answer

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The economy of globalists is one of scarcity.

In a world where there is scarcity, resources mean life and death.

Without borders to define boundaries of ownership, resources a nation holds would be resources any holds.

So if i water my cattle from a creek on my property, upstream Mexico could dam off the creek and kill my water access (this happens already in Texas with New Mexico playing the water barrons).

Among many reasons.

Maybe one day we can live without borders, like we did 20k years ago. Today isn't that day. We aren't ready.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis




Ok I'll bite.

Globalization has been a race to the bottom in wages, environmental protections, and workers rights. Globalists want to erase borders as a hinderance to predatory capitalism IMHO. They want no soveriegn countries with the ability to stand up to them and their ability to exploit labor, resources, and poverty to their benefit at the expense of almost everyone else. One of the reason people from Mexico and latin America are wanting to cross the border in the first place, is because of the ravages of globalization, the devaluation of commodities like produce in Mexico has made it impossible for farmers to survive there in many cases, forcing them to come north into the US to look for work. To me the beneficiares of globalism are international banks, billionares, and multinational corporations. The losers are EVERYONE else.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So if i water my cattle from a creek on my property, upstream Mexico could dam off the creek and kill my water access (this happens already in Texas with New Mexico playing the water barrons).

Yes - and there are many agreements in place - between countries - to make sure everyone gets their water:

Although there has been widespread discussion of the economic consequences of the Trump administration’s proposals, too little attention has been given to another major tie binding the United States and Mexico: the future of the Colorado River and water security in the American West. This column highlights the current state of the Colorado River basin, as well as its uncertain future.

Maybe one day we can live without borders, like we did 20k years ago. Today isn't that day. We aren't ready.

We aren't ready for a lot of things - including trying to maintain a nationalist approach in a changing, shrinking world. How much is that going to cost us? And really, what is the point?

Identity politics? :-)

Scarcity has always existed. Property isn't safe even within a country. Nationalism (and ultranationalism) don't guarantee that private property will be respected or protected. Rule of law does - but only if we all agree to what that means, and we all fight to protect it