(no message)
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/america-nationalism-diversity-trump.html
but the rational behind his pseudo-nationalism is very clear in his writing. It's his love on People as a whole. There is about 5% people with this kind of abstract love in his own survey, he admitted at beginning. He is just too shy to say he belongs to this 5% people. But, if you love people here, there is no reason why you don't love people in another corner of the world. There is no reason why you are just a nationalist, not a globalist. The 5% group of people are elite or even superhuman being, but they don't speak for the rest, about 95% people. They don't represent 95% group of people. For these 95% people, family love is the strongest, truly coming from our experiences and uses up most of our hormones. Then we have experiences with our locals, neighborhood, town, county. Gradually love becomes more abstract when it goes beyond of our experiences. At national level love has already become pretty abstract.
(no message)
A survey is abstract and has pseudo interests.
Using %'s is abstract
(no message)
(no message)
my nationalist side is nervous about a cavalier attitude toward the rule of law. I am a strong supporter of legal immigration and am proud that we are a melting pot and that so many different peoples want to come here. I just wish we could come together and agree to a rational reform of our immigration laws. Sadly, our politicians on both side prefer to have a wedge issue that they can use against one another.
plans that passed the R senate only to be defeated by the drooling morons in the HR.
But then what would Trump have to run on? You think he wants a bipartisan solution that gets rid of his favorite dog whistle bogeyman?
Bush had the chance on this one and lost concentration...
We are increasingly unable to solve the nations problems and adapt to a changing world. Immigration, healthcare, hell we can't even confirm judges without single party rule.
(no message)
I kinda blame the internet.
I once was an enthusiastic Republican. That ended in 92 when the Buchananites (the original trumpites) knifed HW in the back and helped elect Clinton. Bush, McCain, and Romney were okay when they ran. Then came this abomination.
We use to be the party of ideas, most good, some not so, but overall a big improvement to the same old, same old, just throw money at interest groups and problems approach of the other side. We were for free trade, opportunity, balanced budgets, lower taxes, free markets, safe borders, and a global order that believed in human rights and utterly defeated the Soviets by rubbing their noses in their bankrupt totalitarianism.
Now we are for tarrifs, crazy deficit spending, fearmongering, isolationism, divisiveness, crazy rhetoric, kissing the ass of a dictator led, much weaker version of the Soviets, and evangelical social right wingism.
Count me out.
I believe it started with cable news and talk radio and has been exacerbated by the internet and especially the devolution of social media into politics.
A rhetorical: If nostalgic memories of one's youth leads to nationalism (described as "Love for nation is an expanding love because it is love for the whole people."), does a less than ideal childhood lead to the opposite?
while hating the other half - In Brooks explanation of individualism, Trump is a monger of individualism and he hates and even despises all others outside his offspring (and even they might not all fit into his sphere).
Trump uses American or, I'm an American to mean, I can get away with anything I want and my enchantment is myself the way my Daddy taught me to be.
Money has protected his institution of self-absorption all his life and now being POTUS, it's his steroid. Empathy, feeling and governance isn't in his make-up - and neither is intelligence or thought. He's a shell of salt. There are no "great joys or great feelings" for Trump. He's and idiot sociopath. To that issue, he has allowed another sociopath, McConnell to pollute our political system and democracy to another end.
Great piece by Brooks - I don't always agree with his sum, but this is one of those well seasoned recipes of American life that is plated beautifully.
Excellent post.
It's called demagoguery.
But super glad you're able to discern between the two because clearly to most everyone else, they're the same.
Literally, just banged my head on the keyboard reading your idiotic posts.
Just like you and the Trumpbots are two sides of the same coin. The targeted audience of the demagogue.
BTW, this isn't whataboutism. I am not defending either side by pointing out that the other is bad, I am condemning both while also pointing out your hypocrisy.
Saying you're are separate, in the middle or aren't part of the issue is more than bullshit. You're inability to know the difference is why a guy like Trump can sit in the Oval office today.
You feed on the same rhetoric in your "I'm not part of that group" that the FOX TV personality journalists and pundits push onto the gullible of the nation. And you think, you're so above it all. Well, you're stuck in the fray of Trumpisms and whataboutisms - A who from Trumpsville.
Now there's a guy in Brooks, who is a super conservative describing his thoughts on being a patriot and someone who lives his country in comparison to another New Yorker, Trump and you're all about - Two sides of the same coin.
The best piece on Trump was during the endorsement time by The Atlantic. Find it and read it. Maybe then, you'll start to get it.
(no message)
(no message)
Your accusations are so wrong they're not even worthy of a response, it'd be like trying to convince a baby not to shit their pants.