Comments by "No One" (@joermundgand) on "Trump Tower Russian Lawyer Charged in Case Showing Kremlin Ties" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CalebCalvin Pakman thinks she the "most qualified", a person who fucked up three countries is the "most qualified", Honduras, one coup orchestrated by HRC(remember the caravans, they are there because dear old Hillary sold mining right to her friends in high places, that's why they are fleeing, armed thugs chased people of their land), Libya military intervention backing extremists, Syria backing Al Nusra(Al Qaeda rebranded), that's not qualified, that inept.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@katiek.8808 Nationalism and pride are not compatible, you can love your nation because it is your home, you can have pride in your individual contribution to make that home better for all, a nation state is many things, a republic, a constitutional monarchy or a democracy is one form of nation state in which the subjects or citizens are members of a clearly defined franchise. a dictatorship also has a franchise, it can be a franchise of one person or of a small select group and these are also nation states.
Who belongs to the franchise are the ones who have power, but the ideologies or ideas for how to govern nation states flow from an axis, for some the idea of the group supercedes the idea of the individual, this is not a left or right axiom, it is more intricate, an anarchist, a true anarchist desires no centralised government, only local government ad hoc created by individuals for specific tasks.
A communist desires the state to be synonymous to a vague concept of "the people" and therefore want to imbue it with all power.
A nationalist conservative considers the franchise to deserving of certain rights and privileges in return for service to the nation state in order to maintain social cohesion.
A liberal considers the nation state and the franchise to be a necessary tool of organising a defined franchise in which the right and privileges are afforded to all who simply dwell within it's borders.
A fascist thinks that the nation state should serve the interests of the majority ethnos and that only those who fall within that ethnos is deserving of being afforded "protection" from the corporations who have interests within the nation state.
It is not simply a matter of left and right, a social democrat and a nativist conservative both forinstance believe that the nation state is the best tool to bring about prosperity for the franchise, where they differ is on what constitutes prosperity and how it is to be accomplished, they both value social cohesion, they both believe that miltary force can only be used to defend the state from a clear outside threat from another state, they share this last sentiment with a libertarian or an anarchist.
It is complex and messy.
1