CouchPotato

And Kamala is the poster child for high intelligence.

I have no doubt that every country with enough power to do so tries to influence other countries elections.

It's funny because all the OP did was point it out, make a personal complaint over it and say he is done with it. Then, the leftists say "Oh, boo hoo!", as if he has made a huge stink. If something offends them we tend to see a lot more than that. I remember years ago when Ezra Levant published the Danish Mohammed cartoons, he had to defend himself in front of a human rights panel. Leftists had no problem with that. There are laws against misgendering. So the left is quite hypocritical when they say, "oh boo hoo" when you complain about something. They go beyond complaining about what offends them. They seek to ban what offends them.

Jesus Talks About Paying Taxes 24 When Jesus and his followers came to Capernaum, the men who collected the Temple tax came to Peter. They asked, “Does your teacher pay the Temple tax?” 25 Peter answered, “Yes, Jesus pays the tax.” https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 17:24-27&version=NCV How do you suppose he was able to pay taxes without touching money? Did he pay online?

I am not saying leftists are Nazis. I am saying they often find a way to bring them up in any conversation -- though not for the same reasons Five of swords is bringing them up. I never said it did. I said that many people nowadays define themselves as nationalists in contrast to globalism and open borders. You can be in opposition to two things without asserting that they are the same. I don't know whether or not they are correct in defining themselves as nationalists. You can argue things like that until you are blue in the face. The meaning of the word liberal has changed a lot over the years, at least in popular usage. Good work on The First Reich.

Jesus produced a coin from the mouth of the fish to pay a tax. The disciples had a treasury. I suppose you could point out that Judas was the treasurer. But I doubt they abolished the treasury after he killed himself. Paul said to have no concerns about eating anything sold in meat market. To do so one would have to buy it, unless they were stealing. The way to heaven you are proposing, the abolishment of money, is political one. Much like the invention of money in the first place. Mankind (er, I mean peoplekind) cannot make heaven. This ties into the original sin itself.

You are right. I am not arguing that because cultures have emerged and died throughout history we should just surrender our culture to something else. That would be extreme. You are able to see the insanity of that. But you are at the other extreme.

I am pointing out that when you talk about people groups with a common legacy and culture, that was not always the case. There was a lot of disunity before there was unity. The Britain you mention as a people was actually a lot of different peoples who beat each other up a lot. It's not that I am totally discounting the existence of cultures. I think culture is very important. I think culture does have a huge bearing on values and political ideas. This is something the left completely ignores. If you bring in large numbers of people with different values all at once, there are going to be cultural and political struggles. I think it makes a lot of sense to try to avoid that. But at the same time a lot of people from all kinds of places share western values.

Well, yeah in some cases, there are a huge cultural differences. I mean you can predict how most black people will vote in the coming election. But the cultural differences are not inherently genetic. And people are the same in many ways. You could make the same argument about Alabamans vs Californians. You mention nations like Ireland and Britain. Well those places were invaded by different peoples throughout history. They weren't always united as a people. I mean in England you had Britons, then Anglos and Saxons and then Normans. Lots of bloodshed. Probably some huge cultural differences. By comparison, USA is doing pretty good.

Ok but once again. Nation state was a term I used improperly. It was not used in the definition of nationalism I mentioned. https://www.google.ca/search?sca_esv=be16b17cae58a747&sca_upv=1&q=nationalism&si=ACC90nwKPQWKXvO0LWGU61hOTgoDpsMrmgs3nmT6LMxLZuZm3Ho8Ez1E1MXprPb0eAzkpDtsAx4luS9zzYuyBMqHZvHln3EA2_-D-wL9vXs3SBNdMACXBlY%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-mfPos8iHAxVqMlkFHcdrNQoQ2v4IegQIFBAq&biw=1176&bih=515&dpr=2.5 noun: nationalism; plural noun: nationalisms identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. "their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"

Well, America, for instance is made up of people of all kinds of ethnic origins who have much in common. In many cases, Americans share more culture with other Americans of other ethnicities than they do with people from the countries their ancestors came from. In some ways they don't. My ancestry is mostly British/Irish. I think in some ways I do still have some of the values of those cultures instilled in me. But in others, I have more in common with other Canadians.

Fair enough, then. I was ignorant in my use of terminology. I will rephrase. In some definitions of nationalism the elevation of a specific ethnicity is a key defining characteristic, in others the nation itself (regardless of ethnicity) is elevated.

Not at all. Nation states are made up of all kinds of ethnic groups. Germany had Jews. They were citizens of that state.

I don't think anyone is qualified to say what true nationalism is. You can look up definitions of nationalism, and they are all different. Some define nationalists as people who would put the nation state first, and others would say that a nationalist would put a certain ethnicity or group within that state first. Political ideologies are not so cut and dry. Right and left wing for instance are not always well defined. Some people have a collection of ideas from both. And some people refer to people as being right wing for very different reasons than they might consider someone else as right wing. Anyways.... What was "The First Reich"?

Well, yeah, I would say it's important. It happened less than a hundred years ago, and it's understandable that people bring it up. But people go overboard. National socialists don't hold the monopoly on nationalism, though. I would say nationalism is a pretty broad term. I think many people today would define themselves as nationalists in contrast to globalism and open borders. I suspect you might argue they are not real "nationalists", but then I think there could be an argument made that your guy wasn't a pure nationalist, either.

If we had a thread on our favourite ice cream flavors, I am sure he'd find a way to steer the topic to nazism. It's almost like the leftists.

Do you know what he means by nazism? I think so, because you replaced it with national socialism. Do you know what the word pedantic means?

I stopped reading here... We prefer to say "peoplekind." Be better blackbird. 😀

See what you are doing here. First you quoted Trump without the entire context of his speech. Look, see what he said now. Then, people give you the context and explain it to you. But you just ignore all that and basically say, "Yeah but if I remove all that context again, see what he says! Look. See what he says. If we ignore what he meant, it's plain as day that he wants to stop people from voting." It's the same thing with "bloodbath". There is never any counterpoint with you. You just hammer away on the original argument. It's an endless circle.

No. If you listen to the speech, it's pretty clear what he was talking about. You are the one desperately stretching the limits of reality here, by claiming that he is saying he is going to get rid of the vote. Once again, he was talking about how many Christians choose not to vote. He was saying you have to get out and vote this time. Then, you won't have to. You can go back to staying out of politics if you want. But you really have to get out and vote this time. That is the realistic interpretation because that is what he was talking about in his speech. To you the realistic interpretation is the most sensational one. You talk about being objective, but you parrot the most ridiculous propaganda from the media.

Once again, myata, you see nothing you don't want to see. The media gave you a Trump quote out of context and told you what it meant. People explain it to you, but you close your eyes. He didn't say he was getting rid of the vote. I had that entire speech on last night while I was doing other things. It was a major theme of his speech that Christians need to get out and vote more. They don't like to vote, but they have to do it this one time because it's very important. Then, you won't have to once the important issues are fixed --- not "you won't be able to." There, I explained it twice for you. You will just ignore it, though, and keep saying "we knew, we knew, it was so obvious." You probably still think that Trump talking about a bloodbath in the auto industry means he was threatening a bloodbath. You are either completely dishonest or deliberately deluding yourself. This is why your call to bury the hatchet and stop demonizing each other is so hollow. You can't do it for five minutes. You claim things like Trump is going to get rid of voting. I am pretty sure you mentioned the bloodbath in another thread. You can't go five minutes without making sensational claims about your political opposition. You can't even do it in a thread you started about how we shouldn't make sensational claims about our political opposition.

If you listened to his speech, you would know that Trump was talking about the fact that many Christians prefer not to vote and stay out of politics. He urged them to get off their feet and vote this time because the issues are so important. Then, they can go back to not voting if they prefer. But see, you just prove my point here yet again. Claiming that Trump is going to get rid of the vote. You buy all the propaganda from your side. It's not much different from the "bloodbath" quote. The media clearly lied about it.

Oblivious not obvious. Anyways.... In summation, I think there are two key points I can take away from all this. 1. People on either side should stop demonizing the other side. 2. Trump and those who support him (half of America) are fascists and thugs.

And there you go. Completely oblivious.

I don't find this very credible from you, because you seem to find it very plausible when talking about Trump and Trump voters. You are incredibly dramatic about it.