Trump: There is no global flag. There is no global citizenship.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You'd think with all the time Trump has spent in New York, he'd have seen the U.N. flag at least once. Incidentally, that flag was designed by an American back when the U.S. was indisputably the greatest nation on earth.

[JA]

At the end of the day, we're all humans. We share the same basic biological imperatives, which tend to manifest in similar ways. However, while we may share many aspirations, we often disagree on how to achieve them or what defines "the good life." These differences are not easily painted over, despite the globalization of capital and the exporting of American media. The great middle of America wants to share a one-world society as much as does the common person from Germany or Iraq or Botswana, ie not very much.

Eliminating prejudice, intolerance, and conflict is critical, but if you think this will occur by breaking down borders, then you're hopelessly idealistic and naive. If you think borders are imaginary lines on a map, then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of government and its outgrowth from and representation of a unique culture or collective group of cultures forming a singly society. Different groups always have been and always will be different; it's the responsibility of civilized people not to pretend like these differences don't exist, but to find a way to cooperate with others despite them.

[Helsinkian]

You'd think with all the time Trump has spent in New York, he'd have seen the U.N. flag at least once. Incidentally, that flag was designed by an American back when the U.S. was indisputably the greatest nation on earth.

How many people in the world feel more loyalty toward the UN flag than toward their national flag? Not many.

[dead0man]

Incidentally, that flag was designed by an American back when the U.S. was indisputably the greatest nation on earth.

you say that as if it's less true now

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Incidentally, that flag was designed by an American back when the U.S. was indisputably the greatest nation on earth.

you say that as if it's less true now

Trump's whole campaign was based on the premise that America was no longer great and that he would MAGA.

[PresidentSamTilden]

you say that as if it's less true now

Well, it kinda is, lol. The US is still doing pretty well compared to many nations. But we have declined in some key areas compared to the rest of the world since '45.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

150 years most Americans would have viewed the idea of the "American Nation" as a unifying characteristic between the residents of the several states as laughable. "The United States" was a plural noun into the 1890's, an uncomfortable power sharing agreement between a set of very different people and states. If one completely arbitrary nation can be formed around common ideals and agreements to not kill each other I see no reason it couldn't happen on a much larger scale.

Trump's mindset is frozen in an outdated nationalism that, god willing, will not exist within a generation or two.

150 years ago they had just fought a war to defend the unity of the American Nation.

[politicallefty]

At the end of the day, we're all humans. We share the same basic biological imperatives, which tend to manifest in similar ways. However, while we may share many aspirations, we often disagree on how to achieve them or what defines "the good life." These differences are not easily painted over, despite the globalization of capital and the exporting of American media. The great middle of America wants to share a one-world society as much as does the common person from Germany or Iraq or Botswana, ie not very much.

Eliminating prejudice, intolerance, and conflict is critical, but if you think this will occur by breaking down borders, then you're hopelessly idealistic and naive. If you think borders are imaginary lines on a map, then you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of government and its outgrowth from and representation of a unique culture or collective group of cultures forming a singly society. Different groups always have been and always will be different; it's the responsibility of civilized people not to pretend like these differences don't exist, but to find a way to cooperate with others despite them.

Unfortunately, if Gene Roddenberry's vision is to ever come true, humanity has to first face a catastrophic WWIII before humanity achieves greatness.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

This. If Trump is serious about what he's saying, he should work to split the union into many parts, because nothing unites all these people other than ideals. Globalism is the future.

Sure, as long as you can tell us what this unifying global ideology is?

The idealogy of not wanting to be blown up, have their children educated and retire is a pretty unifying theme tbh

Nice evasion.

Now answer me this:

Are you willing to share a global supreme court with people whose values are irreconcilable with your own.

??

Lol the only person defecting is yourself, hon. It's a universal value to not want to starve. I mean I would never want a centalised global state for the reasons you say, but that can easily be an argument against nation-states in the same place. Plenty of people in my country with values irreconcilable to my own, but I have to suck it up.

Nationalists are the elite's useful idiots.

You got that wrong. Globalists are the elite's useful idiots. How else could they undermine national labor and environmental laws by opening up free trade with nations that fall far below our standards, without the help of the useful globalist cheerleader idiots here at home?

Don't make me laugh. Why are labour and environmental standards being loosened and tax laws loosened? To "maintain international competitiveness". Of course if people jsinply united and pushed for proper global unity so that everybody in earth could enjoy the same standards with nowhere for megacorps to run. But no, that would make the flagmasturbaters weally sad so nationalists endorse the creation of a corporatist state with no standards at all. BUT MEH FLAG MEH COUNTRY MEH BORDERS

You live in a fantasy world if you think everyone would come together and set up universal labor and environmental standards acceptable to first world nations. It would be just as it is now, a race to the bottom. Nations that have low standards and authoritarian governments able to control their citizens will be the desired location of capitalists looking to exploit other people for larger profits. The only measures the rest of us have to fight against that is tariffs and subsidies, but the useful idiot globalists want to prevent us from using those measures.

What is needed is a new global trade bloc, with nations that meet minimum standards on human rights, workers rights, and environmental regulations that can enjoy free trade among themselves. Then slap tariffs on goods coming in from nations that don't meet those standards, with the severity of the tariffs proportional to the number of standards they fail to meet.

Eventually, way down the road when every nation has raised themselves to meet the standards necessary to join the free trade bloc, we can talk about your globalist utopia. Instead useful idiot globalists wanted to hurry up with their vision of some sort of Star Trek future utopia, without seeing that they were playing into the hands of capitalists looking for cheap labor and lax regulations to exploit. And you ended up hurting the working people in your own countries in the process.

see I largely agree with this, but the trouble is your tariff solution. Tariffs don't work as a permanent solution. They're just rubbish policy.

And of course, your ilk  demands the break-up of the EU into squabbling nation-states, so I feel you might be a bit disingenuous.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Trump will keep making these ridiculous and laughable comments that no one can argue against because if you do you're accused of being unAmerican, to distract from his terrible governing decisions.

[Meclazine for Israel]

The world is more globalised than ever.

The advantages of globalisation is primarily with developing nations.

Samsung release an update and Africa stops dead and updates it with relish.

Cultures of the world protected by lack of communication with the outside world and isolationalist ideals will be struggling to maintain any meaning within the next 10 years once their children get a phone with Facebook and Google on it.

I could not fathom how quickly the African nations where i worked were so hungry for change and the promise of a better life through technology. A cell phone was a status symbol.

Economic migration and technology are offering a 'voice' and new promise to people from nations with no voice, no hope and no future for their children.

Trump wont be able to stop that.

[pbrower2a]

Incidentally, that flag was designed by an American back when the U.S. was indisputably the greatest nation on earth.

you say that as if it's less true now

Other countries have caught up on America in technological innovation and living conditions. America is still better off in the quality of life than many countries because its population is less dense in much of the country due to a lower cost of living (regional exceptions in the Boston-Washington corridor, coastal California, and such cities as Seattle, Chicago, Honolulu, and Miami). Education? If you are Jewish or a member of some East, Southeast, and East Asian groups you do as well as any other nation does... but to get a chance to stay in the world's bourgeoisie it would be a huge hindrance to be a poor white person from the Mountain or Deep South or a poor black anywhere.

Ethnic strife? We have seen little lately; say what you want about Black Lives Matter, most white people can at least understand why black people would be upset about a higher percentage of blacks dying in encounters with the police. Black lives had better matter. America was making solid strides toward being color-blind in public policy instead of being color-blinded. 

We have the worst system of medical payments in the First World and took baby steps in improving that... but things will get worse as the Trump Administration pushes a cost-loading system (profits are the objective, and if people die for those profits, who cares?).

Economic inequality is severe in the USA -- at levels that would never be tolerated in any part of Europe except Russia. It will likely get worse. The poor in America may have some nice electric toys, but those will do no good as wages fall to those unsuited for bare sustenance.

Taxes really are low in part because we have a very stingy welfare state. But we pay for our low taxes in substandard education and health care for the poor.

I expect America to slip severely under Donald Trump because the Party wielding the political power truly believes that no human suffering is in excess so long as the misery generates elite profits. His anti-intellectualism will degrade educational performance, and his contempt for the environment will turn American concern for the environment from average for the First World to average by Third World standards. His racist rhetoric will either implode due to its absurdity or it will lead to ethnic strife more severe than that in America in the 1960s, if not an Apartheid system.

"Make America Great Again"? Sure -- back to Gilded Age, when at the least technological innovation was rapid enough to force economic progress that allowed people to challenge such nastiness as child labor. It's hard to see what technological innovations could make American life better than what fair wages and good working conditions can achieve by themselves. Living conditions in the Gilded Age are probably about where India is now. But trash India for poverty if you wish, its government seems to care more about its hundreds of millions of poor people than the Trump government will care about the poor in America unless the poor insist on getting out of poverty. Donald Trump's ideology needs mass poverty for maximal profits for elites.

I expect us to throw away anywhere from fifty to a hundred years of progress except in technology. I'd rather throw away a hundred years of non-medical technology than throw away the fifty to a hundred years of social progress that the reactionaries would cast off. (OK -- we'd better have police radio to stop the likes of the Dillinger and Barrow-Parker gangs; we had better keep seat belts, safety glass, and collapsible steering columns in cars even if the cars resemble Model Ts; we have too many cars to not have catalytic converters; and it would be a good idea to keep our Interstate system of faster, safer roads). If it is a choice between food and 3D TV with Blu-Ray video and surround sound, then we are bet off with the food. So far as I can tell, the Old Order Amish who reject the entertainment and its devices and leave school at 16 but have a sane social order seem happy enough.

Make America Great Again? We need to protect what makes it good.