I don't feel like getting downvoted for saying we shouldn't discriminate against people but whatever

If you want to follow this logic black people shouldn't be allowed to move out of the cities cause they're far more violent
The US allows any religious belief to be held (1st ammendment) even if it is illegal. It doesn't become a problem until people act on those beliefs. This is and always has been the core idea of religious freedom

>First off, explain how we're not a global power

We are. By stamping our feet and ignoring the march of global economics we will give up our place because the US will no longer control most world trade.

If you want your country to matter, you have to adopt globalist thinking. Trying to be competitive as a world power when you have no economic ties to anyone else is impossible

>Next, explain how we would control China with "political and economic leverage" when they are our biggest rival

because if we stopped doing business with china, their economy would collapse. Owing someone a lot of money is just as much their problem as ours. China depends on the US to a massive degree, and that economic dependency ensures peace between the two and in the area. If the US started dropping out of international trade China would have less incentive to comply with US demands because the US wouldn't be the only thing propping up its economy.

Think of it like: If I owe the bank a trillion dollars, who's problem is it?

>So, something that's intended to keep you and I safe, is a limit on religious freedom?

Yes? It makes being Muslim harder than being Christian and treats one religious group favorably compared to another. That's pretty clearly a limit on religious freedom since the US now puts an asterisk on the 1st amendment saying "believe whatever you want (but if you believe the wrong thing you waive your right to privacy)"

>The safety of the people should never be compromised when there is a legitimate threat whose views are extremist and anti-western

some of the core ideas behind the US's founding are based on the idea that individual liberty is more important than societal security. We have several amendments that reinforce this (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th) are pretty clearly against trading liberty for security.

This is a basic belief of the US and to rescind it would be a huge cultural change. Logical consistency would require giving up things like gun rights or freedom of the press because they can limit national security.

you realize there's a gradient to racism right?

It isn't like every Trump supporter is wearing a hood but its pretty clear they're far less concerned with racial issues than Dem voters are. Idk how everyone gets their fee fees hurt when someone tells them they're being racist.

racism isn't a group its a character trait that is common among Trump supporters. More white people voted for Trump, more racists voted for Trump, fewer minorities did

Saying the average Trump supporter is an uneducated White guy isn't calling all of them uneducated white guys.

When people are saying Trump supporters are racist as a whole it is because they support policies that reinforce SES divide among races (IE the literal definition of racism). That's a fairly neutral thing on a national scale, since good and bad policies can be racist or not.

Its just pretty likely if you think blacks are icky that you voted for Trump because he keeps being White a good thing

>. All Trump wants to do is separate those who supporter or sympathize with ISIS and similar terrorist groups from those that do not

and datamine anyone in the US who is a muslim

> But what they don't tell you is there is a very large percentage of Muslims that believe Sharia law should be the law of the land

A lot of Christians want to oppress people too. I don't think discriminating against people because they believe something different is cool, sorry :(

>Oh like the NSA that spies on everyone

yeah, that's bad

>rights

you're trying to say what he's doing is good. It isn't about good or bad or w/e. You objectively have fewer rights in Trump's ideal america

>The idea of a singular global government means that individuals matter less

how? How in the world do individuals matter more or less if the entire world cooperates? Individuals barely matter now, they'd barely matter in a globalist world. No matter what you want to pretend people are already bound to each other for international trade. You don't get to just stop being a part of Earth.

>If the EU does things to fuck over and bully the UK it would be hurting itself

The end result would be a trade war where the EU and the UK try to see who has the bigger GDPdick and the UK is gonna get fucked much much much much harder I promise you.

Your argument could also be used to say that leaving the EU hurts the UK more. If they're major trade partners and the UK gives up any ability to negotiate internal agreements then the UK is now at the whim of the EU with no way to participate

There's objective reasons and benefits for society to allow abortion though. Banning it is based on morals that say killing things that are kind of close to human are wrong. Most social issues that the GOP supports are like this.

~~~~

>Oh how is that bad

America is always going to be beholden to the interests of other countries because we live in a global economy. Fighting globalization only retards America's ability to establish itself as a global power. You can have 20 years of ignoring China now or you can have America be able to control China with political and economic leverage.

> He is in favor of extreme vetting and possibly a temporary immigration ban on people from terrorist prone countries

Which is a limit on religious freedom. He also wants to create a network that monitors domestic Muslims.

>He said let the states decide

Mustard has told you multiple times over multiple threads why letting the states decide is effectively banning it. Letting states decide just means that instead of all 50 states allowing gay marriage, only ~25 will. You will objectively have less freedom as a result of allowing states to decide marriage issues

>just having overreaching control on private corporations.

that would fall under controlling the markets. If you support actual free markets and true capitalism globalism is the logical end product. Attempting to set up an insular free market is bad for a lot of reasons that you won't believe me about because I'm just going to cite economists and historians who pretty unanimously agree that tariffs are bad

>what freedoms does Trump want people to give up

Gay marriage, 1st amendment in regards to the press, limitations on religion, freedom to have an abortion, economic freedom to conduct international business, freedom to go to the gender correct bathroom, probably more if I spend more time on this

>then maybe you can sound like you are informed on the subject

idk you seem to be getting along fine yourself

>I'm not sure if you actually understand the globalist agenda

apparently not. Sorry for not knowing all the facets of your Illuminati conspiracies

>The globalist agenda is more about the promotion of a one world government with a global currency, global laws, open borders, global culture,

How are any of those bad? Increased trade and more efficient transmission of resources + people around the globe is good for humanity as a whole

>a decrease in religious liberty, personal freedoms

Trump is in favor of banning muslims and reinstating bans on gay marriage. Seems like you voted for the wrong guy

>a decrease in capitalism

By trying to artificially limit what businesses can do in america?

>more global control over virtually every aspect of our lives

So instead you vote for the candidate that promises a reduction in nationally granted freedoms out of fear of some shadow entity in the future that you have no proof or cognizance of reducing your freedoms instead?

> Brexit was about England maintaining its own sovereignty

and as a result England is still going to be bound to the whims of the EU in regards to trade but now has no control over EU policy. England is now more under the hand of globalism than before

> Russia has also rejected globalism by putting some of these globalist bankers in prison

Russia is a dictatorship with a failing economy. Do you REALLY want america to follow suit?

trying to have a rationale discussion with a party that bases their policy on feelings and moral dogmas isn't feasible

until the GOP wants to start applying some actual methodology or reasoning to what they do that is actually supported by people who understand government we'll have a continual deadlock.

that's only a valid argument if I supported the EC when it didn't benefit me.

I think trying to band-aid brain-drained areas by giving them unequal control of the government isn't fair to anyone.

does the definition of a democracy have an asterisk where you pick the #2 guy in a plurality?

what i'm saying is that the US's democracy gimps it by reducing the voting power of most of its most important states. Letting North Dakota have proportionally more control of the US than California makes the US weaker as a whole

California represents 15% of the US's GDP and is overwhelmingly democrat. Yet the state that the US depends on the most to actually function is being governed by a government that is as diametrically opposed to them as is possible in US politics. If California seceded it would be the 6th largest GDP in the world and the US would fall from #1 to #2 as far as GDP goes (if you count the EU as a single trading entity). California's tax burden ends up being the vast majority of states that have citizens that hate california's politics. California is now being governed by a congress, president, and soon SC that will limit the rights of its citizens when possible.

the level of need the US has for California is far far far far far far far far far far far greater than the amount of political representation California gets.

that's why the Electoral college is bullshit. It tells the loser states they're more important than the people who actually make America matter

telling globalism to fuck off is only a win if you're in the bottom 25% of america

The rest of our economy depends entirely on service work propped up by managing overseas manufacturing
American independence is all well and good but we aren't any more autonomous than before. We're probably less independent now since closing trade relations means we lose political leverage but w/e
\\

Black people beating up white trump supporters isn't racist (nor is white people beating up black people for supporting clinton)

//

we all know what thuggery means. you can say nigger if you want. we already know you're a racism apologist so it doesn't really matter speak your heart

this is a case where a minority fucked over a majority though. Is that really better? What these results say is that the states making the least amount of money and contributing the least to the economy are more important than places like New York, Texas, and California which collectively have basically no political input but bankroll the flyover states that are nowhere NEAR self sustaining

How is that fair?

lmao like I give a fuck about working class peasants

if you're too dumb to go to college you're too dumb to breathe

and you're clearly not healthy cause you're missing yr brain

lol

i may be a libtard but my dad was never on welfare cause he couldn't find work

because i'm not the descendant of a loser

how does it feel to genetically be inferior to other people because your father is too pathetic to market himself?

You're not american so I'll let you know where illegals work here

farm fields

the things that Americans have avoided for decades because you'd be lucky to hit minimum wage. Construction and shit is whatever. Immigrants do jobs that Americans don't want to do. It is very VERY easy to replace an immigrant in a tomato field around here if you wanted to, but it never happens.

tho it really just sounds like yr dad is a loser who needs to pull himself up by the bootstraps. What pathetic fucking cuck can't even find work lmao

if he hits mexico with tariffs

and mexico's #1 trading partner is the US

how exactly does that not end up with the US paying for the wall?

you can try and defend the wall but it actually just makes you a retard. The cost of the wall would be more easily used by just paying anyone who claims to be fucked by immigrants to shut up. It costs ~$10k to deport someone, and $25bn for the dumb wall from construction alone. Illegal immigrants are nowhere near that damaging to the US economy, and some would argue they're a benefit.

there's a reason no one in the past 20 years has actually done anything about them: its a waste of money