This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] CrustyBeaver52 ago
He has to be careful not to ignite a civil war - the Pentagon analysis clearly states that should a civil war begin many foreign powers are expected to intervene such that holding the country together is far from guaranteed. So Trump walks softly. We here may agree with the idea of a harsh crackdown - but Trump has to lead all Americans - including the very large percentage who do not hold right wing views.
Short of a WWII war measures style powers - such as were initiated after Pearl Harbor - the Federal Government does not actually have the - uh - political currency, if you will, - to engage in extreme measures without generating a severe backlash. Look at what was initiated after 9/11 - Department of Homeland Security/ TSA/ black site torture/ GITMO/ continuous surveillance/etc - all justified by an extreme event - amazing these actions did not lead to immediate uprising. Look at what is happening right now - simply attempting to enforce the existing laws concerning immigration carries a huge political controversy.
Smart leaders know it's a hearts and minds kind of thing - first you must bring your people into your vision - so it becomes a shared vision - then you implement policy with the cooperation and participation of the people... now convince it was their idea all along.
Trump is a smart leader... he has to turn the ship without sinking it. He has a lot of experience doing exactly this sort of thing gained from running his very large organization which is why I believe he has a chance to succeed.
[–] White-Supremacist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Better that we die on our feet than live on our knees.
I understand the implication, I consistently get the impression that they are biding their time merely to disarm US citizens rather than anything else. Their ZOG war machine to conquer non-rothschild bank nations continues.
Can you imagine a reason to not place national guard at the very least on the US/mexico border? https://kek.gg/i/4Bgphy.jpg
http://archive.is/HQXX5 "Illegal Immigration Surges Back To Obama Levels"
I don't know if this is true or not.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
For a while - like the last 30 years - I believe the effort to establish a global government was a genuine one - that all parties had initially agreed and had approached the project with a genuine desire to establish planetary governance. I also believe that along the way several of the key parties - like the Russians and Chinese - and much of the third world - became disenfranchised with the idea - not with the idea of the need for a planetary government - rather with the direction of the current approach to it.
So - during the election, when Trump announced a return to nationalism, he sort of made that sound like it was our revolutionary idea or something - when in actuality the BRICS have basically been laying the foundation for alternate trade/financing/etc - basically an alternate form of the international institutions for everything currently provided by the post war establishment. The point of this being the others were already withdrawing from the globalist deal before America also decided to return to nationalism. And what does this all mean in the big picture? It does not mean that globalism is dead - it means that globalism may still happen - but the format has to be renegotiated - because the current approach is simply not working.
A return to nationalism doesn't mean the US is interested in severing all ties to Mexico - but it does mean a general return to the status quo that was in effect prior to the last few decades - think more like the 1970's, and less than like 1995. It doesn't mean no Mexican immigration - it does mean a return to standing in line and getting the proper documentation first.
Trump may end free trade - he will not end trade - there is a difference. He, along with most of the other players, are merely retreating back to the starting positions - back to where shit was working before. That is something they all know how to do.
Trump could deploy the national guard to patrol the border - and that is something he might try if it should prove necessary - but he has already cut the flow massively, and in just the first year - due to just enforcing the existing laws with ICE. If a wall is actually built - well, walls in Israel have proven to be highly effective - like 99.9% effective - the flow of illegals will slow to a trickle. Perhaps it is also true that the now vigorous ICE operations can also handle the problem on their own, and no further measures will be necessary. I am not an expert on the subject by any means.
Some research suggests the Rothschilds recently directly threatened Trump - and he turned around and directly threatened them back. The bankers may feel that they are in charge - but the truth is the militaries are in charge - and always have been in charge. The bankers exist at the sufferance of the militaries - and every banker could be executed tomorrow, without trial, or even mention in the news, if the militaries decide it should be so. The reverse is not also true.