• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump supported open borders, globalization and free trade in 2013

Einzige

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
... But Clinton is the one who can't be trusted on policy.

Trump: Europe is terrific place for investment - CNN.com

I think we've all become aware of the fact that our cultures and economics are intertwined. It's a complex mosaic that cannot be approached with a simple formula for the correct pattern to emerge. In many ways, we are in unchartered waters.

The good news, in one respect, is that what is done affects us all. There won't be any winners or losers as this is not a competition. It's a time for working together for the best of all involved. Never before has the phrase "we're all in this together" had more resonance or relevance.

My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability.
Click to expand...

Europe is a terrific place for investment. I am proud to have built a great golf course in Scotland after searching throughout Europe for five years for the right location. I've seen many beautiful places.

The future of Europe, as well as the United States, depends on a cohesive global economy. All of us must work toward together toward that very significant common goal.
Click to expand...
 
His position.....you know.....evolved.
 
Trumptards don't give a crap about issues. They only care about feel good rhetoric, ie. "kill ISIS", "deport illegals", "build a border wall", "stop Muslims", "cut taxes". No flaw of character, absence of experience, or scandal can cut through the frothy emotional appeal. Couple that with an almost religious fanatic hatred of all things Clinton (successful democrats are always demonized by the right), a willingness to believe any stain on the Clintons, and to believe it worse than it is, and you have people hysterical and unable to see reason on any level. Classic demagogue and low info voters eat it up.

To that end, the more successful the Clinton presidency is, the worse the anti democrat demonizing will become. No matter her successes, the right will manufacture scandal and actively see governmental failure by any means necessary to prove their false point.
 
MUH OUTSIDER
MUH ANTI-ELITIST

Blue-collar Republicans are chumps. When the ultimate history of this election is written, one hopes whatever historian who writes it tallies the number of Trump votes in a given State to the number of meth busts this year. Maybe it'll be Trump's margin of difference in the swing States.
 
Good. I hope that, in a century or two, all nation-states dissolve. There were vast stretches of human history before they existed; there will be eons after they cease to exist.

Trump evidently shared that view not three years ago.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Thanks, Trump. Hillary almost certainly could not have done it without you.
Click to expand...

Hillary would like to thank Donald Trump in his efforts to help her secure the Presidency without any effort.
 
Last edited:
azgreg said:
His position.....you know.....evolved.
Click to expand...

Sure they did, one day Liberal, next day Conservative, happens all the time ..........................
 
Van Basten said:
Open borders is lunacy.
Click to expand...


Mikhail Bakunin supported what we today would call open borders. It was also the default position of American immigration policy until the 1890s.
 
Einzige said:
Good. I hope that, in a century or two, all nation-states dissolve. There were vast stretches of human history before they existed; there will be eons after they cease to exist.

Trump evidently shared that view not three years ago.
Click to expand...

We've had nation-states for as long as we've had permanent settlements. I don't think they're going to leave anytime soon.
 
Casper said:
Sure they did, one day Liberal, next day Conservative, happens all the time ..........................
Click to expand...

If you want to know someone's true political leanings, look at their positions before they run for office and not during.
 
Einzige said:
Mikhail Bakunin supported what we today would call open borders. It was also the default position of American immigration policy until the 1890s.
Click to expand...

I'm not interested in Bakunin's views on immigration, just some of his one-liners. He was an anarchist, so the whole idea of "immigration" is a world of difference in his point of view since he didn't believe in keeping the state around in the first place.

@bold: And yeah, there was reason for it then. That time has passed.
 
And now that time has returned. Everything old is new again, alleluljah, allelulhah.
 
Jesse Booth said:
We've had nation-states for as long as we've had permanent settlements. I don't think they're going to leave anytime soon.
Click to expand...

Nope. Primitive clans, ancient empires, feudal settlements - none of these are directly analogous to modern nation-states.

England after the Norman invasion is the classic example of the distinction. The English-speaking natives were ruled by French-speaking Normans and official business was conducted in Latin, and none of this was contested on the grounds of nationalism, but on rival claims to the throne regardless of the nationalities of the subjects.

The modern concept of the nation is no older than the seventeenth century and the aftermath of the European Wars of Religion. The Roman Empire, for example, was not constituted on the basis of a shared nationality, but on recognition of the supremacy of the Emperor. The Empire held jurisdiction over multiple nationalities in the contemporary sense.
 
azgreg said:
If you want to know someone's true political leanings, look at their positions before they run for office and not during.
Click to expand...

Correct, we are who we are by our deeds, not by our words.
 
Einzige said:
Nope. Primitive clans, ancient empires, feudal settlements - none of these are directly analogous to modern nation-states.

England after the Norman invasion is the classic example of the distinction. The English-speaking natives were ruled by French-speaking Normans and official business was conducted in Latin, and none of this was contested on the grounds of nationalism.

The modern concept of the nation is no older than the seventeenth century and the aftermath of the European Wars of Religion. The Roman Empire, for example, was not constituted on the basis of a shared nationality, but on recognition of the supremacy of the Emperor.
Click to expand...

na·tion-state
noun
a sovereign state whose citizens or subjects are relatively homogeneous in factors such as language or common descent.

I fail to see where nationalism is specified in the definition of nation state, but I'll play along. Assuming that a common language out of a sense of cultural or national pride is part of what makes a nation state a nation state, I would say that the early Greek city-states are absolutely perfect representations of that concept. Just as one example.
 
The Greeks are an exception which proves the rule. And even there, their loyalty was to the individual city-state than to the concept of a greater Greek cultural complex (an excellent comparison would be to pre-Civil War Americans identifying much more strongly with their State, as in "these United States", than with the United States). The Athenians and Spartans spoke the same language and worshipped the same gods, and barely united against the Persians all the same.

The word you're looking for is tribalism, not nationalism. Individual groups have always opposed themselves to outsiders, but the modern nation is a historical innovation, a new form of organization.
 
Einzige said:
The Greeks are an exception which proves the rule. And even there, their loyalty was to the individual city-state than to the concept of a greater Greek cultural complex (an excellent comparison would be to pre-Civil War Americans identifying much more strongly with their State, as in "these United States", than with the United States). The Athenians and Spartans spoke the same language and worshipped the same gods, and barely united against the Persians all the same.

The word you're looking for is tribalism, not nationalism. Individual groups have always opposed themselves to outsiders, but the modern nation is a historical innovation, a new form of organization.
Click to expand...

Alright, how about Qin China? Sure, the loyalty was to an Emperor, but it set the precedent for a united China, standardized language and systems of measurement, etc.
 
Last edited:
The Qin are a good example of what I'd consider to be a proto-nation. Unlike the Romans a few centuries later, they did have a unified self-conception (centered around Confucianism), An identity not dependent on the ruler, etc.

They also lasted not quite two decades.

I look at the Qin the way someone in the future, after the Earth has organized into a single body, might look at something like the United Nations: an extremely early rough draft of the eventual thing.
 
Einzige said:
The Qin are a good example of what I'd consider to be a proto-nation. Unlike the Romans a few centuries later, they did have a unified self-conception (centered around Confucianism), An identity not dependent on the ruler, etc.

They also lasted not quite two decades.

I look at the Qin the way someone in the future, after the Earth has organized into a single body, might look at something like the United Nations: an extremely early rough draft of the eventual thing.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'm out of opposing arguments and examples, besides childishly pointing out that the Qin dynasty favored Legalism over Confucianism.

I'd question whether or not a global government would be a good thing, but it's very late in my time zone and I have early classes tomorr- ...today. Have a good night.
 
I notice that none of the Trumptards who pay lip-service to the anti-globalization movement have bothered to comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom