These definitions aren't really helpful.Answer #1. One who subscribes to globalism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalist
Answer #2. Samsung.
Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
Words often have a wide semantic range, and this range changes over time often as well.And when you're done with that, please let me know what brand of flat-screen TV you own.
Throwing around idiotic jargony phrases can really make you look and sound stupid.
We live in an interconnected world. Well over half (if not more) of our consumer goods are manufactured elsewhere. In spite of our most sincere wet dream wishes there are myriad basic goods and materials that we don't have here in the US. That means we have to trade for those goods and materials. And unless you want to start paying 3-4x what you're now paying for your TV's, shirts, shoes, cell phones, refrigerators perhaps you imbeciles should reconsider throwing around terms you obviously don't comprehend.
These definitions aren't really helpful.
a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence
What is a 'proper sphere?'
Again, international politics goes back to the dawn of civilization.
That's a good description. The problem is defining national sovereignty and international power. To some, illegal immigration indicates a loss of national sovereignty. To others it doesn't. International power exists in many areas, economic, military and political being three.Words often have a wide semantic range, and this range changes over time often as well.
Globalist has come to mean in some circles as someone willing to have a loss of national soveriegnty to international power it seems.
It's quite clear theoretically, and worded as such. So theoretical as to be simplistic. Not helpful. The hypothesis does not superimpose on the real world.Hi, Michael.
Read the definition again and give it time to rumble around in your wetware. It is quite clear.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
It's quite clear theoretically, and worded as such. So theoretical as to be simplistic. Not helpful. The hypothesis does not superimpose on the real world.
What nation has or has ever had such a policy?
It's quite clear theoretically, and worded as such. So theoretical as to be simplistic. Not helpful. The hypothesis does not superimpose on the real world.
What nation has or has ever had such a policy?
I have a better question. It will answer yours. It's the question I asked. Which you've answered with several.Hi again, Michael.
Let's see. If a nation, in its political position, does not subscribe to the globalist concept, it must exempt at least some other nations from consideration as a nation to interact with as either a political friend or political foe. For the United States of America, those nations include: ?
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
I have a better question. It will answer yours. It's the question I asked. Which you've answered with several.
What nation in the history of nations, including the US, has ever held a position that does not interact with other nations as friend or foe?
Someone who thinks the UN should dictate US policy (or anyone's policy) would be a globalist. Must be a tiny club. Who are they?
No, not at all. Just seeking a real-world example. Got any?Hi again, Michael.
Your question elides the concept of 'global', which was where we started.
It's been nice chatting. I'll sign off now.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
I think it refers to people who believe in the free market for global trade,
It definitely does not mean that. Trump uses the term and he is very much against free market globalism.
I'm tempted to believe that based on his record with the China trade war. I'm not really sure what Trump's basis for a tariff war was.It definitely does not mean that. Trump uses the term and he is very much against free market globalism.
Huh? I am getting confused now- because obviously that’s what Trump and his supporters mean when they use that term “globalism” when they use it in such scary term: according to them, globalism= anti-free market globalism; economic nationalism.
Bannon rejects white nationalism: ‘I’m an economic nationalist’ | CNN Politics
Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s selection for White House chief strategist, says he’s an “economic nationalist” but rejects racist and anti-Semitic elements of the nationalist alt-right movement.amp.cnn.com
I'm tempted to believe that based on his record with the China trade war. I'm not really sure what Trump's basis for a tariff war was.
Okay. Trump wasn't a globalist in the geopolitical sense, but what was he? Did the nation benefit or suffer from the policy?
I checked your definitions. Sounds like a good approach to the world, one followed by both US conservatives and liberals since at least the late 1930s. To be fair, there has always been a passing isolationist (anti- globalist) sentiment in US politics, almost always trumped by reality: the US battleship "Maine" blows up in Havana, and when the dust settles, we own the Phillippines. One can't be a world power, trading with everyone, overthrowing annoying governments, using whatever pressure is necessary -- even foreign aid -- to allow our businesses access to foreign markets, importing workers to do jobs Americans shy away from, and then with a straight face disparage "globalism." People may say "America first," and all our leaders do consider the interests of the country first --albeit in different, debateable ways -- excepting our former prez whose approach was of course "Trump First."Here you go. I answered your question before you asked in this other thread.
What does "maga" mean?
MAGA is just another con by the greatest con man that has ever entered the political arena in America. All he is really for is wealth and power. He used the Rush Limbaugh model all the way to the white house. He plays on the disenfranchised white working class loss of standard of living. He...debatepolitics.com
And, in this one...
The Fascist states of America
From my reading of such laws (when I could) I don't see any "voter suppression." I see exactly what the bills were intended to do. Increase voting security, reduce forms of possible fraud, and ensure people legally entitled to vote can do so. Too often the Democrats and other Leftists frame...debatepolitics.com
As you can see, this has nothing to do with what brand of TV someone buys. It's about control and money.
Tariffs are always a net negative, unless they're used strategically to enhance national security.Sorry, you're right, I misconstrued what you wrote.
Trump, like many economic illiterates, believes the economy is a jobs program.
Tariffs make Americans worse off on net.
And when you're done with that, please let me know what brand of flat-screen TV you own.
Throwing around idiotic jargony phrases can really make you look and sound stupid.
We live in an interconnected world. Well over half (if not more) of our consumer goods are manufactured elsewhere. In spite of our most sincere wet dream wishes there are myriad basic goods and materials that we don't have here in the US. That means we have to trade for those goods and materials. And unless you want to start paying 3-4x what you're now paying for your TV's, shirts, shoes, cell phones, refrigerators perhaps you imbeciles should reconsider throwing around terms you obviously don't comprehend.
Agreed.Sorry, you're right, I misconstrued what you wrote.
Trump, like many economic illiterates, believes the economy is a jobs program.
Tariffs make Americans worse off on net.
A globalist supports free trade, putting corporate profits above the good of the people of their country.
Trump never pushed for isolationism.
It should be FAIR trade, not free trade. For the benefit of the nation.
Long-distance trade pre-dates the nation-state. Pre-historic societies traded with each other.
From Egypt to Greece to Rome in the West, the nation-state evolved both as a trading partner and conqueror. Perhaps this is the dichotomy we're seeing here. Trading resources vs taking them.
The US is by no means self-sufficient. Thinking otherwise is batshit crazy, so I'm not sure what a nationalist economy would look like.
It's about control and money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?