-
During peak periods, this site will only be accessible to registered members of the site. Login or create an account to participate in the discussion.
Politics 🤡 Donald Trump
- Thread starter sup42
- Start date
Hell yesYou were looking forward to them at the start and as you saw the country going backwards as their policies took effect you slowly became disillusioned?
And then as their policies were blowing up in their face they talked weasel words and blamed everything and anything for why it was going wrong.
Has National had enough time for this to happen yet?
Goldsmith is capable, Willis and Bishop have shown themselves competent so far and Collins is capable if she knows her tasks. Luxon is smarter than we give him credit for but a good manager rather than a leader.
They have their work cut out for them, especially to not give too much power to ACT and NZ First whose pollies aren’t past a C+.
It’s very early days though….
Worried2Death
Contributor
But who are these globalist elites, the UN? Globalists is usually a dog whistle meaning (((Jews))) used by propagandists, are you sure you're not swallowing conspiracies based on non-existent fears too?
Conservative Christians are pretty keen on banning books from American libraries too, along with drag queens.
Globalists are in and often drive groups like World Economic Forum, many driving the European Union and the United Nations. There are leaders and powerful people who want the world working together in sync over issues such as immigration, food production and distribution, world security, monetary issues, climate change, global censorship, etc etc. It’s not a secret group, it is an approach to dealing with world issues which often involves commitments and treaties which tie the individual states together at the expensive of national sovereignty. For example when the UK left the obligations of the European Union, or Trumps expectation not to be responsible for global security at the expense of the US. Many with a globalist agenda went nuts, UK gained the ability to determine their own immigration laws and trade partners without having to live by the expectations of the globalist agenda which put heavy burdens and expectations
on some individual states. So globalists are 100 percent a thing. People who reject the global agenda like Trump seek to put their national sovereignty and national welfare first are a problem to the globalist agenda because they are after the welfare of the individual state and believe in national sovereignty. So this is a thing. We have our own anti-globalist in Winston Peters who is refusing to be tied into the WHO’s treaty. He strongly believes in national sovereignty and Nee Zealand First.
So if you don’t believe in globalism or globalist elites who drive and incentivise global solutions which is often needed and beneficial but can have a negative impact under certain circumstances what can I say?
Re Transgender books from America, read what you want bro. Just don’t push perverted stuff onto my kids when they are not ready.
Last edited:
Worried2Death
Contributor
Sounds like fear of an invented enemy, very effective political device but I'm not buying the narrative.
Personally I don't think drag queens reading children's books are a threat to anyone, just convenient pawns in the current culture wars. Both sides like to cancel the other.
Last edited:
Bro, how have I been dragged into the drag queen story hour? Read as much as you want with who you want, I don’t care.
Re Globalism: People either support the globalists agenda, independent states national sovereignty, a combination of the two or don’t realise that is the back drop in which governments function. No conspiracy, it’s how the world works. If you all don’t want to believe that there is such a thing as globalism don’t…
That’s fine with me.
I didn't read this post so I could completely regret this post but you're 1 of the few (how do I say this in a nice way lol ) far right posters that actually backs up what he says or feels with some decent logic, based off your last few posts. Good on you bro
Global division - I think government has become more controlling of society rather than enabling for society. This is needed as more people live together in large cities with exploding populations - we lose some individual rights to enable massive, complex higher density societies.
Some politicians like to lead the curve rather than react. To me the left typically are progressive and push ideas forward. There is a fine line between pushing a policy or waiting 10 years when the idea is acceptable to the voting masses. Examples are many Green policies that in the past were seen as extreme but are now mainstream. My idea is that governments (or maybe it’s just society) is changing our lives too fast and it creates political division.
The last government was progressive in pushing ideas around race, climate change, transport, crime, etc. Overnight banning oil exploration a prime example. World leading carbon pricing on farmers another. Cycling and public transport prioritisation over cars, another.
We see the same in the US around abortion, immigration, race and the city/ rural divide.
The problem is when you are leading change, you annoy a section of the population. Each change gets a few more annoyed and the division grows. So for political survival, the counter is for government to picks winners to offset those they are pissing off and secure their vote. Then the division explodes between the winners and losers on each side. MMP has made this worse in breaking voters down into clear pockets that get favoured than targeted with changes in government.
When both parties push changes fast (as we’re seeing now with NZ First and Acts policies) the population gets disenfranchised with politicians generally. Less people vote, less people do the census, there’s a rise in sovereign citizens and crime, etc. The faster the changes the more division - and the worlds changing fast! We see circuit breakers like the Wellington protests, farmers rioting in Europe, racial riots in the US, anti globalisation, conspiracy theories, extremist on both sides getting a platform, etc. Sound familiar?
Trump is not a politician. He doesn’t have a grand vision or ideology and is latched onto as someone to stop the relentless push for change from govt. Make America great again = Take us back to the good old days when life was simpler. NZ first and Act also targeted the disenfranchised vote.
What’s the solution? We must progress or we go backwards. Is division just an inevitable necessary, as we live in a more complex, overpopulated, climate changing, demographic shifting, higher density society that requires ever increasing rules and regulations? Or is a more central middle road achievable?
Ironically I think it’s a problem for Western democracies requiring rapid change for a rapidly changing world but democracy requires the voters to support the necessary changes, many times having negative consequences personally. And that’s the issue - with more and more people we must slowly individually lose what we had in the past for it to work.
Some politicians like to lead the curve rather than react. To me the left typically are progressive and push ideas forward. There is a fine line between pushing a policy or waiting 10 years when the idea is acceptable to the voting masses. Examples are many Green policies that in the past were seen as extreme but are now mainstream. My idea is that governments (or maybe it’s just society) is changing our lives too fast and it creates political division.
The last government was progressive in pushing ideas around race, climate change, transport, crime, etc. Overnight banning oil exploration a prime example. World leading carbon pricing on farmers another. Cycling and public transport prioritisation over cars, another.
We see the same in the US around abortion, immigration, race and the city/ rural divide.
The problem is when you are leading change, you annoy a section of the population. Each change gets a few more annoyed and the division grows. So for political survival, the counter is for government to picks winners to offset those they are pissing off and secure their vote. Then the division explodes between the winners and losers on each side. MMP has made this worse in breaking voters down into clear pockets that get favoured than targeted with changes in government.
When both parties push changes fast (as we’re seeing now with NZ First and Acts policies) the population gets disenfranchised with politicians generally. Less people vote, less people do the census, there’s a rise in sovereign citizens and crime, etc. The faster the changes the more division - and the worlds changing fast! We see circuit breakers like the Wellington protests, farmers rioting in Europe, racial riots in the US, anti globalisation, conspiracy theories, extremist on both sides getting a platform, etc. Sound familiar?
Trump is not a politician. He doesn’t have a grand vision or ideology and is latched onto as someone to stop the relentless push for change from govt. Make America great again = Take us back to the good old days when life was simpler. NZ first and Act also targeted the disenfranchised vote.
What’s the solution? We must progress or we go backwards. Is division just an inevitable necessary, as we live in a more complex, overpopulated, climate changing, demographic shifting, higher density society that requires ever increasing rules and regulations? Or is a more central middle road achievable?
Ironically I think it’s a problem for Western democracies requiring rapid change for a rapidly changing world but democracy requires the voters to support the necessary changes, many times having negative consequences personally. And that’s the issue - with more and more people we must slowly individually lose what we had in the past for it to work.
Last edited:
Yep, its an inherently human response to be resistant to change and with an ever ageing population this is probably increased.
In the same way that the liberal left is hell bent on destroying history (pulling down statues, rewriting curriculum to be insanely incorrect).
Both ends of the 'spectrum' are ridiculous in a lot of their beliefs and thankfully, don't represent the majority of people.
Has he ever clarified when America was at its greatest & what he's trying to replicate?
I think many mental health issues could be linked to a rapidly changing world with its stresses and pressures.
Humans need consistency but the world is changing rapidly.
Older humans do.
My understanding is that younger minds are in a stage of development and find it easier to retain larger quantities of new knowledge, more regularly.
As you get older, your brain relies more and more on preestablished patterns of understanding.
Thanks for the tone bro. Appreciate it.I didn't read this post so I could completely regret this post but you're 1 of the few (how do I say this in a nice way lol ) far right posters that actually backs up what he says or feels with some decent logic, based off your last few posts. Good on you bro
I would like to say IN GENERAL that we are leaguies, we are used to confronting big buggers and putting our bodies in the line. We don’t let our fears stop us from engaging. I think we can do better. The name calling just serves as a diversion and doesn’t really advance us. Let’s be brave and deal with the content before us rather than calling names. That just shuts down conversation and possible learnings on both sides.
I would like to ask what qualifies here as far right? I’ve never been called that In person. I think it needs to be atleast objectively measurable in some form otherwise it’s just a tag thrown around to shut people up. So what are some beliefs that are far right? I would be interested from anyone on here
.Tell me you haven’t studied WWI or WWII without telling you haven’t studied it. Hitlers speeches are translated to English now via AI.
It most definitely was NOT a dog whistle.
1950 -1990 was Americas peak prosperity.
Segregation, Cold War, Vietnam War & numerous recessions....
What a time to try & revive
Last edited:
We might need a forum definition of both Far Right and Far LeftThanks for the tone bro. Appreciate it.
I would like to say IN GENERAL that we are leaguies, we are used to confronting big buggers and putting our bodies in the line. We don’t let our fears stop us from engaging. I think we can do better. The name calling just serves as a diversion and doesn’t really advance us. Let’s be brave and deal with the content before us rather than calling names. That just shuts down conversation and possible learnings on both sides.
I would like to ask what qualifies here as far right? I’ve never been called that In person. I think it needs to be atleast objectively measurable in some form otherwise it’s just a tag thrown around to shut people up. So what are some beliefs that are far right? I would be interested from anyone on here
True, that crossed my mind.