When Obama gives up on reaching out, I think we can stick a fork in the idea. Our only hope is to outvote these people and then fix the electoral system so that they aren't over-represented so badly. While killing the electoral college is impossible, stopping voter suppression and making voting easier would do a lot to prevent another Trump.
Is it time for a campaign of sympathetic outreach to Trump supporters?
- Thread starter shanen
- Start date
- Status
Winning the presidency but losing the Senate is a half-nightmare scenario.
It turns out that it's really easy to sabotage a sitting president with the powerful branch of Congress. We'll end up with a 5-1 Supreme Court.
They came in as literal refugees and a lot of that had to do with the bombs the US dropped on them making a lot of places uninhabitable, not just fleeing the Communist regime.
This is literally what you're asking for yourself. The EU is being unfair for seeing Eastern Europeans as a horde of invaders with too different culture and they should be happy to immediately accept 40-50M of you because it's the right thing to do and you're cultural brethren. But I am unreasonable and purposefully inviting disaster for daring to ask that we try to accept more than only 3M Latin Americans who I feel are close to us in culture and are our fellow Americans.
I truly do understand the reasons for special pleading, but that doesn't mean I'm going to roll over and agree with it unless it gets me something useful. And it currently doesn't because the same people who fear immigration don't want to do anything about preventing climate refugees needing to leave either.
I wouldn't say giving up. What I see from this convention is that there's a clear effort to sympathetically reach out to people who identify as Republicans, but whose attachment to Trump in particular is not especially strong. There have been more than a half dozen Republican voices heard at this convention (Kasich, Molinari, M Whitman, C Whitman, Powell, Hagel, C. McCain...), which (I think?) is unprecedented. The juxtaposition of stories about the McCain-Biden friendship, the four-Rs-endorse-Biden video etc, with the criticism of Trump from pretty much everyone is meant to separate (a few) Republicans (particularly suburban women) from Trump. And it's a message which resonates with the material the Lincoln Project and similar groups have been putting out there.
I'm using "these people" to describe "Trump supporters," not Republicans trapped on a raft with him or swing voters.
No republicans are trapped with him. If it becomes "One of those kind of parties" you can leave rather than eyeing the mashed potatoes.
With the risk of becoming boring I will answer though
Albania Kosovo Bosnia Macedonia Serbia Montenegro are only 16 million people. They already have the right to travel free in to the EU. Even the Ukrainians have this right. What is unfair is to refuse them work permits and to delay their integration - because their countries have to join the EU anyways. In a manner proved to work.
To make the equivalence with mass immigration/refugees in USA is unrealistic.
Panama is not in talks to join AU but Macedonia is in talks for joining EU.
More than 3 million means in reality more than 300 milion. The history proves there is always more such immigrants.
What is unfair for the liberals is to refuse to talk about creating a sustainable globalization, EU being quite a nice example for that. An American Union is highly required.
It is unfair to abuse the patience and the good will of the conservatives and to always ask for 3 milion more immigrants.
It is also very unfair to keep the American countries out. By accepting Panama into the AU or into USA you get 4 milion people (few of them will become immigrants) AND a valuable teritory and you export security.
It is unfair to do that. And in the same time claiming to support solving the poverty and environment problems.
Really, is there any reason for not creating an American Union?
Dont you think its much better to accept and to integrate entire nations, populations plus territories, like the EU inegrated Poland Hungary Slovenia?
Not sure what you mean by special pleading.
EU is a model proven to be working for reducing poverty and exporting security.
Refusing to even talk about doing similar work and always asking for more mass immigration is just unfair.
The conservatives were flexibile enough for a long time. With or without their consent, tens of millions of mass immigrants already made it into the US. The liberals got at least a part of what they wanted. Since they think themselves more intelligent and open minded, it is now their turn to show a little bit of flexibility and talk about the American Union.
Insisting on a single approach - that they already admitted is only accelerating towards a catastrophe - is nothing liberal, nothing intelligent and nothing open minded. Because open minded people accept to talk about alternatives.
Sorry for the reply, most likely we both exhausted our arguments.
Mea culpa for including more countries than you meant. I do think it's unfair too. We are just apparently not going to be in agreement that it's drastically different from the US situation given our larger size and greater resources. It's fine and we can just agree to disagree here. Given how freely capital moves over borders, I am a strong supporter of freedom of movement and work rights. I have no problem with reasonable quotas to prevent resource strain and properly vet and integrate people.
But as far as the refugee situation (who we have a legal duty to vet and protect in the first place), we have stopped trying to solve the problem in good faith at all.
There are plenty of conservatives, from small business owners up to elite politicians, who are happy to employ undocumented workers while publicly railing against illegal immigration. No one's patience is actually being tried, it's just partisan theatrics as their own behavior reveals.
I mean I'm still not convinced your predicament is materially different enough from my own assessment of US/Latin America relations and you are expecting me to make an ideological exception in your favor purely on the basis that it's you affected.
I have no problem with the idea of the AU and it would be perfectly acceptable to me. I'm a bit skeptical of it given our federation of states can't even work well or get along, but I would certainly be open to the idea. I am not the one who needs convincing. I don't think this idea would be acceptable to very many people in the American public, liberal or conservative, and especially not to conservatives who are ideologically-identified with Brexit now. We didn't even want the TPP and NAFTA (USMCA) became a contentious political football and one's like or dislike predicted by their political alignment.
Most likely, but I do appreciate the correction and you elaborating on your views.
I guess I take for granted that when talking about outreach to "Trump supporters" we're talking about talking about the ones who are the least emotionally tied in to Trump himself, and who are "on the raft" because they think Trump does things that line up with their interests. These folks can potentially be brought in by messages like Kasich's (reinforced by Obama etc), pointing out how the negatives from Trump are so very fundamental that they outweigh any perceived advantages (from their point of view) of keeping him in office.
Edit: There's also a nice letter signed by around 80 national security officials who served in Republican administrations:
https://www.defendingdemocracytogether. ... -security/
Honestly I think the subject is done.
There is a campaign of sympathetic outreach to Trump supporters and it's called the Lincoln Project.
They are doing a bangup job at it and I don't think any progressive needs to invest a second more into that subject.
There is a campaign of sympathetic outreach to Trump supporters and it's called the Lincoln Project.
They are doing a bangup job at it and I don't think any progressive needs to invest a second more into that subject.
You seem fairly clueless about the EU to be honest and afaik no non-US country has any interest in an "American Union" because there is no way the US would ever allow Panama to have a veto over like smaller countries in the EU have on new legislation. If any country harbored such notions the Trump administration cured them of it by now seeing how this US treats its neighbours who are already in a far reaching agreement with the US (NAFTA).
The US can't even bring itself to give full voting rights to US citizens living in US territories (Puerto Rico, Washington DC,...). No country in their right mind would think of joining an AU today.
You guys are sheep! I've got a friend whose cousin's uncle is in on it! I've seen the prototype Ameros! 
With all the repub revolations of criminality lately I'm finding it very hard to look at any of them with any credibility anymore.
This morning pence was on Good Morning America transferring the blame from #45 to Biden. As if Biden was president in February as well and they were comparing each others actions. Wow such blatancy. Sadly some will realy beleave him and blame Biden for the pandemic, joblessness, public unrest and probably all his lies as well.
This was in my news feed yesterday:
Daily Kos - Is the entire American conservative movement just one big scam?
The article concludes with:
Then in another ABRACADABRA moment this popped up:The News&Observer - Powerful NC lawmaker took donors’ money for his own use, prosecutors say
Alright I'm not sure if I can ever trust any repub to do anything more that scheme and defraud the government and citizens ever again.
So now I'm thinking: #45's supporters are not only unforgivable but all repubs are suspicious of being bad actors looking out for only their own benefit and service of themselves not the constitution they swore to defend.
This morning pence was on Good Morning America transferring the blame from #45 to Biden. As if Biden was president in February as well and they were comparing each others actions. Wow such blatancy. Sadly some will realy beleave him and blame Biden for the pandemic, joblessness, public unrest and probably all his lies as well.
This was in my news feed yesterday:
Daily Kos - Is the entire American conservative movement just one big scam?
The article concludes with:
Then in another ABRACADABRA moment this popped up:The News&Observer - Powerful NC lawmaker took donors’ money for his own use, prosecutors say
Alright I'm not sure if I can ever trust any repub to do anything more that scheme and defraud the government and citizens ever again.
So now I'm thinking: #45's supporters are not only unforgivable but all repubs are suspicious of being bad actors looking out for only their own benefit and service of themselves not the constitution they swore to defend.
I came to that conclusion during the bloodlust-driven Iraq Invasion. I had suspected it during the Ken Starr bullshit but it crystallized around that horseshit.
And yes, I do also blame the cowardly Democrats that went along with it (just heading that off at the pass.)
The conclusion is that "Conservatives" (what a horribly-misused label that is) are hopelessly toxic to a functioning society. They stand for one group only: rich white Christians. They'd argue, "we stand for functioning society too!" Yeah, a society of white Christians, with the rich ones able to fool the poor ones into blaming every other group in the country for their woes. America as a melting pot is right out to them, they've been trying to get the stains out for generations.
The Right has started this war we are in, and any reaching out of an olive branch results in getting it ripped away from the giver and applied back as a flail. There's one recourse left, leave the fuckers in the their own angry and xenophobic and fearful dust, eventually they'll die off in greater numbers than can be replaced (that's the hope anyway).
And yes, I do also blame the cowardly Democrats that went along with it (just heading that off at the pass.)
The conclusion is that "Conservatives" (what a horribly-misused label that is) are hopelessly toxic to a functioning society. They stand for one group only: rich white Christians. They'd argue, "we stand for functioning society too!" Yeah, a society of white Christians, with the rich ones able to fool the poor ones into blaming every other group in the country for their woes. America as a melting pot is right out to them, they've been trying to get the stains out for generations.
The Right has started this war we are in, and any reaching out of an olive branch results in getting it ripped away from the giver and applied back as a flail. There's one recourse left, leave the fuckers in the their own angry and xenophobic and fearful dust, eventually they'll die off in greater numbers than can be replaced (that's the hope anyway).
I don't know why you would - it's explicitly built into the modern conservative/Republican ethos, which is to dismantle the machinery of government, profiting along the way.
Even though Ronald Reagan would be unlikely to win the Republican nomination today, his core message "Government is the Problem", is the concept upon which the modern Republican party (and whatever's left of conservatism) rests.
Conservative "thinkers" like George Will and his ilk once provided the intellectual backstop to this philosophy by arguing that everyone's ills could be solved by getting the government out of people's lives, e.g. the much-derided, much-repudiated concept of trickle down economics, but there are many, many more examples. This sold really well to just-hitting-middle-age Baby Boomers (mainly White) in the 80s and 90s who reaped the benefits of more money in their pocket while ignoring the fact that this was accomplished by mortgaging literally everyone else's future (not just the economics behind the social safety net, nor the effective running of government, but things like climate change).
It had, and still has had, enormous electoral success because the concept is just so simple, and enters everyone's head the moment they get their first check and ask "Who is FICA and why is he taking all my money?" Instead of campaigning on initiatives that are difficult to explain, like why parts of the government need to grow or change, you just have to tell people you're going to make their lives a little easier by taking away government interference and oh by the way you'll also have more money because we're cutting taxes.
When this is your platform, of course, you don't need deep thinkers to sell it during campaign season. Reagan, a former actor, was of course the paragon of this, scion/failson George W. Bush its maturation, and of course Trump its apotheosis or nadir, depending on your viewpoint.
Of course, back in the day, the George Wills (and, later, Andrew Sullivans) argued that the dismantling of government could, and should, be done in an above-board kind of way. No corruption here. Privatization was good because of a deeply-held belief (ironically held by said "thinkers" without reflection) that the market would provide, and provide efficiently.
Anyone who's worked in private industry (which includes very few of said "thinkers") will, of course, tell you a different story. In fact, as Gordon Gekko (surely now a Republican hero) would hold, a little corruption and graft is not a bad thing if it's in the service of revenue and profit.
Ironically, it was the Norquists and Gingrichs who won the argument, over the Wills and Sullivans. Why bother with putting thought and hard work into determining how to dismantle the government, when you could just starve it of funds, yes, but also attention and competence, and let it fail on its own?
In the end, then, the twin influences of a) having an easy sales pitch and b) not needing to do the hard work of governing created a modern GOP that is populated predominantly by hucksters, failsons, and the kind of used car salesmen your parents warned you about. Sullivan can whine all he wants about "epistemic closure", and Will and his ilk can clutch their pearls, but the very theories of governance for which they provided intellectual cover resulted directly in the modern GOP having no further use for thought or intellectualism, in fact it turned out that hostility towards any thinking whatsoever was more important by far. The "intellectuals" have been thrown out, along with any semblance of good governance, and they/it are not coming back. You'll get Ben Shapiro and you'll like it, essentially.
TL;DR: The modern GOP exists solely to destroy the government and make a buck along the way, and it has convinced its constituents that this will make their lives better (narrator: it won't). There is very little about Republican policy/actions that is not adequately explained by this. And since it's the product of 40+ years of development, it's not going to change anytime soon. Dwight D. Eisenhower isn't coming back to save us.
I consider myself a pretty socially liberal person. I'm also a big believer in what I consider the "Golden Rule", - which I consider to mean "do what you want, as long as it doesn't harm others". Some people may consider that position as libertarian or even conservative, because it can lead into all kinds of avenues of thought spanning the spectrum from stuff like unbridled capitalism to ideas concerning victimless crimes and social justice.
What annoys me though, is a certain condescension that I perceive from the left toward the right, and a failure to understand why Trump is currently the US president. When you run on a platform that mocks over half of the US population ("people that cling to their bibles and guns", or referring to their locales as "fly-over states"), you shouldn't be surprised when your candidate doesn't come out on top.
What annoys me though, is a certain condescension that I perceive from the left toward the right, and a failure to understand why Trump is currently the US president. When you run on a platform that mocks over half of the US population ("people that cling to their bibles and guns", or referring to their locales as "fly-over states"), you shouldn't be surprised when your candidate doesn't come out on top.
My idea of being inclusive with a government for all has become a weakness and a personal flaw. You know, I hate that and I wish it could be different. These old "Hippy values" should have gone a longtime ago when I first realized that everyone with long hair are not in my "tribe," and now not all refer smokers are "cool."
BTW I just watched Julia Louis-Dreyfus's speech: Ponce
BTW I just watched Julia Louis-Dreyfus's speech: Ponce
A parliamentary system has the potential to be more inclusive (and also more chaotic), but the solution to determine the makeup of the parliament isn't something that's been cracked. How do you include and represent everyone, fairly, and give them an equal voice?
Life peers are not for me. We have enough entitledness in America and unofficial birthrights already!
Fuck we can't even get an Equal Rights Amendment passed. Changing the whole constitution will never happen! We just have to work with what we've got. I'd say just outlaw the repub party like the allies did to the nazi party.
I think what you're saying is that a parliamentary system ultimately resembles something like European dynastic heritage,
I don't think that's the case, and I'm not proposing that a parliamentary system is even the best system.
In my ideal world, there wouldn't be any notion of government, and free people could be in charge of themselves. I just don't think we're there yet.
Are you claiming you, and only you, understand why Trump is currently the president? It was an incredibly narrow election, and there's several thousand causal factors here. Do you have some particular new analysis to disambiguate between these?
Which platform did that, again? The "cling to their bibles and guns" line was a comment from the year 2008. That candidate, Obama, won a landslide that year. From your analysis, shouldn't we then do so more often?
I don't recall that Clinton or the Democratic platform referred to "fly-over states", but maybe you can point me in the right direction.
The thing that confuses me even more about your analysis is that it seemingly only applies to Democrats. Republicans do indeed mock half the US population (more, really), but weirdly that doesn't seem to be a problem for you, or, indeed, for their electoral prospects.
Regardless of what someone calls you, your neighbors, or the state you live in, if you vote for people that actively harm you (which words for the most part certainly do not) in many, many, many ways, you have earned condescension, scorn, ridicule and deserve to have a giant L tattooed to your forehead. Voting for Trump because of a tantrum over name-calling ( which really is self-inflicted ) is bona fide stupidity. Even worse, Trump is the epitome of the "East Coast Elitist" these cement-headed simpletons often rail against and yet they literally worship the guy. How fucking dumb can you be?
You know what I have seen in my years of living and working all over the country? The so-called "left" wanting to promote good government, socially responsible actions and justice, healthcare as a right to all Americans, a clean environment, and so forth. They want these things even for the supposed fly-overs. You know what else I have seen, from guess who? Racism. Xenophobia. Laziness. An unhealthy obsession with firearms. Authoritarian worship. Anti-education and anti-intellectualism. Ignorance and lies over science and fact. I could go on...
I used to just be exasperated and wanted to somehow believe these people were just misguided and tricked. But experience has shown me the people that vote Republican are evil, rotten to the core sacks of garbage wrapped in skin and they are PROUD of it. They seethe with fear, anger, and hate. They are dangerous to themselves and everyone else and will destroy all that they claim to love without thought in pursuit of their warped ideas. They must be excised from the Earth like the malignant cancer they are. Hopefully by time and attrition before it comes to bloodier solutions.
* Yes, there are scummy Democrats too
* Yes, there are some good people in the Heartland
* As a rule, there are assholes everywhere, of every race, creed, color, faction, etc. Acknowledged. But some assholes are more virulent than others and they congregate under specific banners such as warped Republican ideology.
Wow. You might have missed your calling as a Pentecostal preacher.
Plenty on "the left" understand how and why Donald won, it's not terribly difficult to understand the narrative that has been bought & sold for decades. Though it is easier if you grew up or live/lived in the parts where that story resonates most.
Anyone on "the left" who doesn't, just doesn't feel like putting in the effort to think about it.. usually because it's painful, but also a naivety of the reality that is our country [there are more Know-Nothings than they want to realize].
Not only is it difficult to see people who are in pain, but also watch them lash out at the wrong sources. Politicians didn't move their jobs overseas, corporate executives and consumer choices did. "Illegals flooding into the country" is a "problem" created by both Reagan's War on Drugs, but also W's closure of the border [not actually a problem, but I digress], because they could no longer just migrate in for the working season and then return to their families in the off season. Crime has been continually dropping long term, but it's also typically motivated by either passion or for economic reasons - when you destroy economic opportunities, you create more incentive for crime - yet the GOP never proposes actually dealing with the root of the problem, just punishment [hint: better education funding + better social safety nets + reclassification of some drugs would drop crime rates even further].
It sucks that progress always leaves behind some cohort, but that progress also leaves the majority better off. One candidate promised to help those that had been left behind [actually telling them like it is, which they falsely claimed they preferred], while the other told saccharin lies [those jobs can't be magically brought back..]. The US moving low profit margin manufacturing overseas, allowed new, higher margin business to take their place and provide a better life for more people.
As best I can tell, outside the Lakoff stuff, what differentiates a "liberal" from a "conservative" is how they view luck. Liberals realize luck plays an outsized role in our lives [who we are born to, the abilities we're born with, the structures we start in], while Conservatives believe luck is a small part of ones life [my success wasn't luck, it was my hard work; my failure wasn't luck, it was "others" stymieing my greatness]. This is why one fights for equality [of opportunity/access/rights] and the other fights for the status quo [working for me, change is scary]. I'd happily accept the ying-yang of Hope/Fear too [liberals are driven by "hope" for a better future, "conservatives" are driven by fear (at this point, of almost everything)].
Anywho..
• How should people describe single-issue voters?
• How should people describe less desirable locations [from both a living & travel perspective]?
• How should people describe the modern Know-Nothing folks?
Please, if possible, explain why the self proclaimed anti-pc people, magically become pc police when it comes to how they are described.
Anyone on "the left" who doesn't, just doesn't feel like putting in the effort to think about it.. usually because it's painful, but also a naivety of the reality that is our country [there are more Know-Nothings than they want to realize].
Not only is it difficult to see people who are in pain, but also watch them lash out at the wrong sources. Politicians didn't move their jobs overseas, corporate executives and consumer choices did. "Illegals flooding into the country" is a "problem" created by both Reagan's War on Drugs, but also W's closure of the border [not actually a problem, but I digress], because they could no longer just migrate in for the working season and then return to their families in the off season. Crime has been continually dropping long term, but it's also typically motivated by either passion or for economic reasons - when you destroy economic opportunities, you create more incentive for crime - yet the GOP never proposes actually dealing with the root of the problem, just punishment [hint: better education funding + better social safety nets + reclassification of some drugs would drop crime rates even further].
It sucks that progress always leaves behind some cohort, but that progress also leaves the majority better off. One candidate promised to help those that had been left behind [actually telling them like it is, which they falsely claimed they preferred], while the other told saccharin lies [those jobs can't be magically brought back..]. The US moving low profit margin manufacturing overseas, allowed new, higher margin business to take their place and provide a better life for more people.
As best I can tell, outside the Lakoff stuff, what differentiates a "liberal" from a "conservative" is how they view luck. Liberals realize luck plays an outsized role in our lives [who we are born to, the abilities we're born with, the structures we start in], while Conservatives believe luck is a small part of ones life [my success wasn't luck, it was my hard work; my failure wasn't luck, it was "others" stymieing my greatness]. This is why one fights for equality [of opportunity/access/rights] and the other fights for the status quo [working for me, change is scary]. I'd happily accept the ying-yang of Hope/Fear too [liberals are driven by "hope" for a better future, "conservatives" are driven by fear (at this point, of almost everything)].
Anywho..
• How should people describe single-issue voters?
• How should people describe less desirable locations [from both a living & travel perspective]?
• How should people describe the modern Know-Nothing folks?
Please, if possible, explain why the self proclaimed anti-pc people, magically become pc police when it comes to how they are described.
Why did Donald Trump win?
He applied simplistic "it'll be great again" slogans to people looking for someone to blame for their issues. He provided them with illegals, "globalists", coastal elites, radical left-wing judges, you name it. None of them tried to look behind the curtain because that would mess up the simple plot line--that in the next four years, he'd banish all those evil-doers and things would pop back to how they were "before"--when those people had their manufacturing jobs, or coal mining jobs, or whatever jobs they had that had gone away.
There was never any simple answer to the question "how, exactly, will we make it great again?" So the solution is, don't ask that question. Just believe in the fairytale that once we put up the wall, banish the illegals stealing all the money, get rid of all the companies overseas that stole our jobs (never mind that our companies are the ones that WENT overseas) the life would return to how it should be.
I personally wouldn't mock those people. I think they have been deceived. They also submerge themselves in propaganda such as Fox "news" and talk radio, which confirms all this fear and hate against those others that have wronged them. I guess that's on them. It's a wonderful cycle of ignorance making a shit-ton of money for a relatively few. The only losers don't even know why they are losing.
Of course we have had many discussions about other players, such as both-the-same/pissed off Bernie progressives voting 3rd party (I knew at least four of them), and just clueless "he's a businessman, maybe he's what we need" attitudes (heard many times) people.
Lastly, the last four years have shown there to be a metric ass-load of racist fucks still squirming around in this country. They don't need to be listened to, they need to be put down. They follow Trump because he's a racist too. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit. His entire history is full of it and that hasn't stopped now that he's a "man of the people."
He applied simplistic "it'll be great again" slogans to people looking for someone to blame for their issues. He provided them with illegals, "globalists", coastal elites, radical left-wing judges, you name it. None of them tried to look behind the curtain because that would mess up the simple plot line--that in the next four years, he'd banish all those evil-doers and things would pop back to how they were "before"--when those people had their manufacturing jobs, or coal mining jobs, or whatever jobs they had that had gone away.
There was never any simple answer to the question "how, exactly, will we make it great again?" So the solution is, don't ask that question. Just believe in the fairytale that once we put up the wall, banish the illegals stealing all the money, get rid of all the companies overseas that stole our jobs (never mind that our companies are the ones that WENT overseas) the life would return to how it should be.
I personally wouldn't mock those people. I think they have been deceived. They also submerge themselves in propaganda such as Fox "news" and talk radio, which confirms all this fear and hate against those others that have wronged them. I guess that's on them. It's a wonderful cycle of ignorance making a shit-ton of money for a relatively few. The only losers don't even know why they are losing.
Of course we have had many discussions about other players, such as both-the-same/pissed off Bernie progressives voting 3rd party (I knew at least four of them), and just clueless "he's a businessman, maybe he's what we need" attitudes (heard many times) people.
Lastly, the last four years have shown there to be a metric ass-load of racist fucks still squirming around in this country. They don't need to be listened to, they need to be put down. They follow Trump because he's a racist too. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit. His entire history is full of it and that hasn't stopped now that he's a "man of the people."
The Latin American countries are anything but în their right minds. Otherwise they would not be devastated by corruption poverty drug cartels.
Their people are desperate and would accept anything in order to join AU.
There is no obligation to give them voting rights in the matters vital for the USA. In the EU the Eastern European countries have voting rights but that doesn't hurt Germany or France or UK. Unlike UK, USA can make it clear from the very beginning that the AU countries have no right to decide on mass immigration issues.
In the end, the only solution for solving environment and humanitarian issues is to create a few unions like the EU. Africa Asia Europe America. There is no other way, as the liberals seems to already agree.
NAFTA is totally different than EU or AU. It makes no sense to compare them. In the AU you can secure borders and set minimum wages to prevent immigration and massive outsourcing.
Trump might disagree but many of his forme voters wont
You are fantasizing big time about Latin America and still wholly clueless how the EU and its members work.
Really? Because I think the Eastern European countries are quite happy with joining EU. Except with the mass immigration issue which was enforced by DE-FR and which is the reason for Brexit anyways. And also with the huge trade deficits - also a DE-FR innovation.
They are because *drumroll* they have a veto over EU wide decisions.
Trade deficit innovation? Again, clueless, France has a deficit, Germany a trade surplus.
There is no mass immigration issue, there is a fugitive crisis thanks to the US which has cost Europe a lot.
Immigration wasn't the reason for Brexit. Britains decided they have no reason to be beholden to Belgium.
- Status