> "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/Neolibera

> "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.