19 ms·

> A lot of the article seems to be based on liberal ideals Not liberal ideals. Globalist neoliberal ideals. > which include a less prominent America, the pro

> A lot of the article seems to be based on liberal ideals Not liberal ideals. Globalist neoliberal ideals. > which include a less prominent America, the promotion of Veganism, and embracing the fall of the West. These aren't liberal ideals. They are globalist neoliberal ideals. Anti-human, anti-american and pro-globalist financiers. > or it becomes more closely unified and a world power in the likes of the US, Russia, or China. Simply will never happen as neither the US nor Russia would support this. Only china currently seems to want closer EU integration purely for economic/market purposes. Power is a zero sum game. The biggest loser in the rise of EU would be the US. Having europe turn from a "vassal" to a competitor would represent a significant loss of power for the US. > Furthermore, I think we could see the United States grow with the additions of Guam, Puerto Rico, and/or Greenland. Guam and Puerto Rico are already part of the US. I think we should work with native greenlanders directly and have greenland become part of the US. Perhaps a large cash payment for each true native inuit greenlander ( not danish/european/etc settlers in greenland ) and a percentage of greenland's productive output for 100 or 200 years? Seems like something should have been worked out with the native greenlanders a long time.

cyphar 7y ago
> Not liberal ideals. Globalist neoliberal ideals. "Neoliberal" refers to Clinton-style ("third way") liberal politicians. I don't know who you're using it to refer to. > Having europe turn from a "vassal" to a competitor would represent a significant loss of power for the US. You forgot to include why you think that's a bad thing. > Guam and Puerto Rico are already part of the US. But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens").
- elfexec 7y ago
  > "Neoliberal" refers to Clinton-style ("third way") liberal politicians. I don't know who you're using it to refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism > You forgot to include why you think that's a bad thing. What? I'm just pointing out why the US would be against a EU competitor? Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote and the comment I was responding to. I think "globalist neoliberal" triggered something that made you see things that aren't there. > But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. All I said was that they are part of the US. > Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens"). Sure. But they are still part of the US. I was responding to " Furthermore, I think we could see the United States grow with the additions of Guam, Puerto Rico, and/or Greenland." Blacks and women couldn't vote in NY and the US for a long time. Doesn't mean NY wasn't a part of the US or the US existed. I think "globalist neoliberal" really got you reading into things. I made specific replies to specific comments. Which you completely ignored.
- asveikau 7y ago
  >> Guam and Puerto Rico are already part of the US. > But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens"). It's a similar situation in Washington DC. DC residents were given a few electoral college votes, I believe that was put into effect only relatively recently in the 1960s. They have no vote in the US house and no senators.

cyphar 7y ago

> Not liberal ideals. Globalist neoliberal ideals. "Neoliberal" refers to Clinton-style ("third way") liberal politicians. I don't know who you're using it to refer to. > Having europe turn from a "vassal" to a competitor would represent a significant loss of power for the US. You forgot to include why you think that's a bad thing. > Guam and Puerto Rico are already part of the US. But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens").

elfexec 7y ago
> "Neoliberal" refers to Clinton-style ("third way") liberal politicians. I don't know who you're using it to refer to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism > You forgot to include why you think that's a bad thing. What? I'm just pointing out why the US would be against a EU competitor? Perhaps you need to reread what I wrote and the comment I was responding to. I think "globalist neoliberal" triggered something that made you see things that aren't there. > But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. All I said was that they are part of the US. > Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens"). Sure. But they are still part of the US. I was responding to " Furthermore, I think we could see the United States grow with the additions of Guam, Puerto Rico, and/or Greenland." Blacks and women couldn't vote in NY and the US for a long time. Doesn't mean NY wasn't a part of the US or the US existed. I think "globalist neoliberal" really got you reading into things. I made specific replies to specific comments. Which you completely ignored.
asveikau 7y ago
>> Guam and Puerto Rico are already part of the US. > But they can't vote and have no (useful) representation in Congress. Citizens of Guam and Puerto Rico are treated as second class citizens ("US Nationals", not "US Citizens"). It's a similar situation in Washington DC. DC residents were given a few electoral college votes, I believe that was put into effect only relatively recently in the 1960s. They have no vote in the US house and no senators.