Politics Thread


I believe every nation should put its own people first and the rest of the world second. Otherwise there is no point in having nations at all. If my fellow countrymen, people I see daily and have a vested interest in helping, were suffering I would be rather upset if money that could have been spent helping them was given to some African nation to build a school. Not because I don’t want the Africans to have a school but because the government is using money it gets from the American people to help other nations as Americans are suffering. We already have organizations like the United Nations and Commonwealth of Independent States who focus on a broader picture. I would prefer if the American government provided for the American people first and focused on the outside world only when the problems plaguing the nation are alleviated.

I think by making America great again, people are talking more about the economic prosperity and unrivaled power America held during the 20th century as @P_Tigras said before. I don’t think Trump supporters are thinking, “Man I wish we could go back to when everything was segregated and women were excluded from certain jobs.” More like, “Hey remember when you could get a job right out of high school and buy a car, a house, provide for two kids, and you didn’t need a college education for everything? That was nice.” I don’t think people want to literally go back to 1950’s America. They just want to bring back the financial security that people of that time period had.


I think more than a few Trump supporters do, in fact, want that.


At this point, if one is still a Trump supporter, i will not take them seriously. Also the ones who support totalitarianism. Their opinions are rubbish to me.

That being said, i would die to protect their right to believe what they believe and say whatever they please even if it is against me and my own beliefs. I am a huge supporter of all kinds of freedom as long as they follow “My liberty/rights/freedom ends where yours begins” logic.


Lol, that’s a whole 25.7% of america.


Education is certainly a mess in the US. It’s both highly politicized and poorly understood leading to virtual paralysis on the national level, a succession of poorly researched fads sucking up billions of wasted tax dollars on the state level, and local boards often dominated by clueless crusaders with an agenda of one stripe or another.

Agreed. The single bloodiest war in American history by far was largely fought over slavery. More Americans died in that war than in all other wars put together. On the plus side, it ended slavery decisively, although full integration is still a work in progress unfortunately.

Furthermore, as @Cataphrak once pointed out to me, the tendency of many in the West to think just because their nations have done bad things in the past, that makes their nation at least as bad as every other nation out there stems from a sense of privilege. All nations have done bad things, but there is often a tangible difference in gravity and scale for the time period being studied, and in that sense Western nations in the post WWII era, while still far from perfect, tend to compare favorably.

I’m not going to pretend this isn’t true, but I do think the political left sees political advantage in exaggerating their numbers, and as a result does so.

I have mixed feelings on this one. There are those Trump supporters I don’t take seriously, and then again, there are also those I do take seriously. For me it really depends on the person and their reasoning. I’d have said the same thing about Hillary supporters as well.


Agreed. I wish more people still shared this attitude today. Increasingly it seems a quaint throwback to a more civil period in our political discourse.

I recall looking at the raw numbers once they were tabulated after the elections. 26-27% of America voted for Trump, 27-28% voted for Clinton, and the rest either voted for a 3rd party candidate or didn’t vote at all. Basically 1/4 of America is at odds with another 1/4 of America with 1/2 of America sitting the fight out. The Democrats have a 1% edge in the total population, or a 2% edge in the voting population, while the Republicans have a geographic edge as they have a majority in more states.


Why Trump wants to declare peace in Korea and bring the 50,000 troops back home:

And if that isn’t enough, expect peace talks with the Taliban to bear fruit sooner than later so more troops could be brought home …


Wasn’t that just in the confederate states? Because maintaining the union was all important.

Wasn’t that a problem during the election? Hillary’s team fought with Obama’s who wanted him to advertise to republican states while Hillary’s wanted him to reinforce Democratic ones?


Even then, it is disputable whether slavery actually was decisively ended. Many would point to the post Reconstruction age as an age of “slavery” without the name for some parts of the Union.


I’m pretty sure the National Guard alone would be sufficient to close down the border. I think we want peace in Korea because what sensible person doesn’t? I mean, I don’t think there is an ulterior and sinister reason for everything he does. Saying we want North Korea to stop threatening its neighbors because we want our troops back home for border security seems like kind of a stretch.


Unless you go full DMZ on the border, you will not be able to shut the border down. Even then Gaza proves that you can’t do so.

Is there any “reason” for things he says and does?

I only want peace to be declared once denuclarazation and the threat to the South is is assured and verified. Other than that, declaring peace, in this particular case would be against the US interests.


While Lincoln’s empancipation proclamation only effected the confederate states, the 13th amendment which abolished slavery in the entirety of the US wouldn’t have been possible had not the South been temporarily disenfranchised due to the war.

Hmm…I’m not entirely certain about that one. I do recall it being pointed out after the election that Hillary ignored the formerly blue Rust Belt states of Michigan and Wisconsin she lost, spending time in red states she was hoping to steal instead, but as to who was responsible for that losing strategy I don’t know.


For many things yes. Its just that many people either dislike or don’t agree with his reasoning. But on the other hand many people do.

Not to much of a chance of this as long as the current regime is in charge. They’ve dug themselves into a hole here by demonizing the Western nations and believing its an “us vs. the world” scenario. Not really any good way to solve it. He won’t willingly step down and he won’t get rid of his trump card either. You could starve them out I guess. But then they would most likely retaliate once they realize people aren’t backing down.


Beyond the questionable moral implications of going this route, China would never go along with it. The Chinese government is NOT interested in having a horde of starving Korean migrants crossing its border. They’d demonize the US for starving innocent people while slipping the North Korean government whatever it needed to survive.


The reason that seems to fit the majority of his actions and statements is: “To play up to his base.”

There is a poll that just was published that shows “Trump voters” (self-identified) say that men are discriminated against more, than gays and minorities … and this is a good explainer to showcase Trumps actions and statements with the Supreme Court nomination battle recently.

The Great Disuniter is very good at dividing America.


Just because there are a lot of them doesn’t make them right.

Financial gain is the only reason i consider good enough to support Trump. I understand there are some people who put too much in him to back away now. But that’s just a handful of them. The rest i truly can’t take seriously.

I cannot know or say for sure what she would have done, but i think it’s pretty hard to do worse than Trump.

Every single human being is entitled to a certain amount of respect just because they are humans. I might disagree, but that basic respect should remain even in disagreement.

Sometimes i feel like people take their freedom for granted and forget how easy it is to take it away. I have seen it happen in this day and age and there is truly nothing scarier than that.

His reasoning is simply pathos based on hate. A very dangerous “us vs them” mentality.


I believe that it is wrong to treat people differently due to factors that they can’t help. I apply this to nationality as much as I apply it to race, gender, ability, etc. I don’t feel any more connected to an American stranger than anyone else, and I don’t see why I should care about them any more.

Nations are good only insofar as they benefit people; they are not goods unto themselves. People are real in a way that nations are not, and I will always care about actual welfare of human beings above groupings of humans. Prioritizing groupings leads to division, factionalism, demonization, hate, and destructive zero-sum mentalities that bring some people down so that others can benefit. Letting others suffer to help yourself is wrong when individuals do it; it doesn’t become better just because it’s a government doing it.

I acknowledge that, yeah, as a practical matter, we are currently in a world of national governments, and we have to work with this system for now. We can’t just upheave the system in one fell swoop, and it’d be pretty chaotic to open everything up immediately. Nationhood has also served as a way for formerly conquered groups to get self-determination. And of course there are local interests… local governments exist for a reason. But none of that has to entail putting a nation above the world. I still see the continuation of nations as a pragmatic necessity, not something that’s actually good in it’s own right.

(And yeah, I’m speaking from a somewhat personal place right now, as someone in an international romantic relationship who’s rather annoyed at the complexities of both country’s immigration systems right now. These are still deeply held beliefs which I’ve considered important principles for as long as I can remember. I’d say that one of the biggest little-acknowledged flaws in Western society is that we seem to fundamentally think that it’s okay to treat someone differently because of where they were born.)

I will never treat someone as if they are worth more or less just because they or their ancestors happened to be born on one side of an arbitrary boundary.


I never meant to imply you shouldn’t care for the rest of the world. But thats where things like UNICEF come in. If the, say, American government isn’t putting the people who pay taxes and work the land above someone in, say, Asia who isn’t paying American taxes or working American land, then I would say the government is doing a poor job. A nations government should focus on its own people first. After all, these people are what make a nation function. That doesn’t mean they ignore the rest of the world. We’ve seen things like the United Nations come together to try and make countries a better place. I agree that you shouldn’t treat someone as lesser because they are from another country. But we also don’t have some kind of singular worldwide government. The simple fact is, if my neighbors and family are suffering and money that could help them goes overseas, we all suffer. We won’t have as much money to send overseas next time and my friends and family still suffer. A governments responsibility should be to its own people first. But that doesn’t mean they can’t still do good for the rest of the world. I’d just rather they fix the problems at home before trying to fix those abroad.


Okay, thank you for clarifying your position. I think I understand where you’re coming from better. I would still wish to work toward a situation in which we are organized in a more global and humanity-based way, so that people who were lucky enough to be born citizens of certain countries don’t have a greater advantage over those born elsewhere, but I also realize it’d be an unfortunately difficult process to get from here to there. I would consider it more effective to consider crises on a global scale and to pool our resources. I think of problems across the whole planet as being “at home” really. So I would rather strengthen these international organizations and channel energy to those. Most problems don’t really stop at national boundaries, anyway, like anything related to the environment.


Sure, glad I could clear it up. I also wish we could work together more. But I’m also one of those cynical military veterans who sees the worst in things most of the time. So I don’t exactly have the most optimistic outlook on the possibility of everyone just working together (as nice as it would be). So as long as the nations stay as they are I would just prefer to know that my government has my best interests in mind. Even if that means slightly less help for somebody on the other side of the globe.


Fair enough. I still disagree fundamentally, but I can respect this point of view. It’s a matter of core values, really. Thanks for the discussion, anyway. :slight_smile: