The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[K. A. Pital]

Sanders on the line:

Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media.

People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the rich become very much richer.

To the degree that Mr Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him.

To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him.

[ray245]

I've watched some TYT and they struck me as people living in their own little bubbles, mainly the urban bubble at the center of modern culture and economy, people well off even by western standards.

From my own admittedly limited experience people like that are living in their own world though the same tends to be true for rural folk too. The urban rural divide is quite severe, both live in their isolated world with the only exposure to the opposing side slanted news stories and stereotypes. Ask some country people about them there city folk and they will tell you how all city people are diseased, loose people with no morals and no concept of hard work. Ask a city person about a country person and some people will say how their all racists, uneducated, hate filled, bible thumping, violent morons.

For urban dwellers in particular they are kinda.....full of themselves. Not saying rural people aren't either by in my experience both IRL and online it seems like urban people tend to be completely sure of their positions, completely unwilling to see opposing viewpoints, in complete disbelief that anyone would dare hold a differing opinion. The same is true for some rural people but some rural people are also more willing to expand their worldview and see other opinions. Some rural people in increasing numbers are okay with gay marriage, fine with LGBT rights, being more and more socially liberal. But how many urban dwellers give much thought to concerns about gun ownership, economic depression, poor white people living hard scrabble existences or really any thing that matters to someone who don't live in one of them there fancy cities with their strange underground trains and big TVs that be on the sides of buildings? Not really, nothing except to make fun of people for clinging to god and guns not realizing for some people thats all they have fucking left.

That Cracked article does explain quite well I think some of the anger inherent to rural people, the thought that nobody gives a shit, the reason why some people were willing to stab themselves in the balls with toothpicks and vote for Donald Trump.

If them there city folk had a bit more compassion and understanding for their toothless cousin fucking brethren living up hollers drinking moonshine and RC cola while watching NASCAR and I dunno, maybe stop with the accepted quasi-racist (culturist?) bullshit that paints all rural people as such we would not be in this horribly horrible mind numbingly insane situation where a loud mouthed RINO moron is the next President of Murica. That and some jobs for areas such as that probably couldn't hurt. Jobs other then making drugs and taking them.

If anything, this election has also managed to piss off the urban and younger population of America. There is elements of betrayal of trust as a result of this election, especially with the riots going on in a number of cities.

This is what happens when things become truly divisive.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, because blocking a couple of trade deals is more important than the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

People like you are the problem, Crown.

No, the solution.

We will be getting an up close look at the consequences of "fuck civil liberties as long as we take down "the establishment"" for at least the next four years.

I don't doubt that most of the third party and Trump types will still accept zero responsibility at the end of it.

[The Romulan Republic]

When I look at other countries around the world seeming to be falling like dominoes to Right wing authoritarianism and bigotry, I am profoundly grateful for Justin Trudeau.

IMO a lot of that has to do with mainstream parties ignoring the trends that are obviously in front of them until its too late. Burying your head in the sand and refusing to listen will only get you so far even in politics, and eventually things will end up catching up to you. We're just lucky that after losing several times with typical establishment figures the Liberal Party realised what was going on and acted on it rather than let the trend continue until some extreme group ended up taking over.

Or as Sanders put it:

"Let me be very clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout.
With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful.
The people of our country understand that — given the collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more establishment politics or establishment economics.
We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors.
In other words, we need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of it."

Although he and Trump were very different people, they both must have noticed the same trend. A pity the rest of Democrats catch on; even if they didn't want him as a candidate, they should have been looking for someone else like him or an Obama type figure rather than Clinton.

Neoliberalism and globalization is dead, all that's left is to see how long it takes to stop denying this simple fact.

A lot of people equate "globalization" with "neoliberal corporatism", and that is a mistake.

Their are different forms of globalization, some better than others, but globalization of some kind is a reality, an inevitability in a technologically advanced world, short of some global catastrophe or every country turning into something like North Korea.

Cultures, political movements, immigration, and, yes, trade will all cross national bounds in a world with planes and the internet. The consequences of decisions in one country will effect other countries, and therefore, international agreements and cooperation between nations, which entail ceding a degree of national sovereignty, are essential.

In such a world, you can have isolationism, or liberty. You cannot have both.

Unfortunately, many people chose to sacrifice liberty on Tuesday.

[Chardok]

One need only look back at a rally featuring the "Freedom kids? Freedom girls? Something like that to see how close to fascism this guy is...It's truly terrifying.



Cowardice
Are you serious?
Apologies for freedom—
I can't handle this!

When freedom rings—
Answer the call!
On your feet!
Stand up tall!
Freedom's on our shoulders.
USA!

Enemies of freedom
Face the music
Come on, boys—take 'em down!
'Cause the Donald Trump knows how
To make America great
Deal from strength or get crushed every time...


I mean...stuff like this is right out of the DPRK/N-word playbook. This was just during the primaries....now he has congress at his back AND THE ABILITY TO APPOINT A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE (Which - let's be honest was 1000% the most important issue in this election).

I've been telling folks all o'er this great, free interwebz the following:

One candidate will be at *worst* ineffective. The other will scorch the sky.



EDIT - Hi Elfdart!

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed.

Love this post from the Late Show's Facebook page:

"If your kid asks the ultimate question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" You finally have the answer: The electoral college."

[K. A. Pital]

We will be getting an up close look at the consequences of "fuck civil liberties as long as we take down "the establishment"" for at least the next four years.

Bernie seemed to take a smarter view of events than you.

I don't doubt that most of the third party and Trump types will still accept zero responsibility at the end of it.

Responsibility for what? You seriously gonna hold a foreigner like me or Crown responsible for Trump?

In such a world, you can have isolationism, or liberty. You cannot have both.

You can very well have liberty in your nation and nonetheless stop drinking the free trade cool aid. What you say is, plainly, a lie invented by the oligarchs. The caricature of North Korea is not helping your cause. Heavily protectionist policies of social democratic nations in the 1950s - 1970s created a welfare state for their citizens. Asshole freetraders seek to destroy that so that a handful of yuppies can sip cocktails in their mansions. But liberty has nothing to do with that.

Liberty is also the ability to have your own nation-state to make law, even law that the corporations hate. Import tariffs and taxes, for example. Regulation on working hours, for example.

Liberty and national sovereignity are connected and not inherently opposed.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yeah, because blocking a couple of trade deals is more important than the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

People like you are the problem, Crown.

No, the solution.

We will be getting an up close look at the consequences of "fuck civil liberties as long as we take down "the establishment"" for at least the next four years.

I don't doubt that most of the third party and Trump types will still accept zero responsibility at the end of it.

What planet are you on? It sounds like you think we are trump supporters. Listen Crown (and Bernie, and Blyth, etc etc) more correctly identified what the problem for the left is, you just keep stamping your foot and going lalalala with your fingers in your ears.

If anything you are the problem people like you and your support of neoliberal policies are what got trump elected.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie seemed to take a smarter view of events than you.

I don't think he's really saying anything different than what I'm saying, your attempt to straw man me as simply a supporter of free trade notwithstanding. I doubt he's any happier about Trump's victory than I am, and just because he says he's willing to work with Trump to help working families (good luck with that) doesn't mean he's any more willing to sacrifice basic liberties and democratic institutions for that than I am. Or are you forgetting the final part of his response?

I'll quote it for you if you have:

"To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."

Unlike you, it seems, Bernie Sanders recognizes that we don't have to sacrifice liberty, or our good relations with the world, in order to protect workers.

Responsibility for what? You seriously gonna hold a foreigner like me or Crown responsible for Trump?

I will hold everyone responsible for the views that they advocate, and the consequences of those views, although I was referring primarily to the idiots who supported him in America.

You can very well have liberty in your nation and nonetheless stop drinking the free trade cool aid. What you say is, plainly, a lie invented by the oligarchs. The caricature of North Korea is not helping your cause. Heavily protectionist policies of social democratic nations in the 1950s - 1970s created a welfare state for their citizens. Asshole freetraders seek to destroy that so that a handful of yuppies can sip cocktails in their mansions. But liberty has nothing to do with that.

Liberty is also the ability to have your own nation-state to make law, even law that the corporations hate. Import tariffs and taxes, for example. Regulation on working hours, for example.

Liberty and national sovereignity are connected and not inherently opposed.

You know full well that I am not simply talking about free trade. That's kind of my point. Globalization does not simply equate to free trade, end of story.

Much like national sovereignty is not inherently a protector of liberty. It can be used to protect liberty, certainly, but it can also undermine it, by being used as a pretext to bar immigration or deny immigrants their rights, for example, or by being used as a justification for disregarding international treaties designed to protect human rights.

I used North Korea as an extreme example to illustrate a point: that due to the nature of modern civilization, nations' affairs will be heavily interconnected. North Korea is the only real (partial) exception to that in our world.

I don't expect you to acknowledge any of this though, or anything that does not fit your tunnel vision view of the issues we face.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, the solution.

We will be getting an up close look at the consequences of "fuck civil liberties as long as we take down "the establishment"" for at least the next four years.

I don't doubt that most of the third party and Trump types will still accept zero responsibility at the end of it.

What planet are you on? It sounds like you think we are trump supporters. Listen Crown (and Bernie, and Blyth, etc etc) more correctly identified what the problem for the left is, you just keep stamping your foot and going lalalala with your fingers in your ears.

If anything you are the problem people like you and your support of neoliberal policies are what got trump elected.

I'm not saying anything about who you voted for. But this sort of attitude, that stoping the corporate establishment has to take precedent over every other issue, is a big part of why Trump got elected. Do you deny that? Because if so, that's the "refusal to take responsibility" I am talking about.

But again: I am not a neo-libeal by any stretch of the imagination, nor an advocate of unrestricted free trade, and no one with basic literacy who read my posts could reasonably mistake me for one. I therefore have no choice but to conclude that you, like K. A. Pital, are lying.

[Thanas]

WTF is wrong with you?

CAN YOU FUCKING FINISH ONE POST WITHOUT ACCUSING YOUR OPPONENT OF LYING? EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THREAD.

FFS, I am pretty much Camp Clinton here and reading your posts just make me want to smash something.

Did your parents teach you nothing about how to be civil and having manners?

[K. A. Pital]

So, in the end, we are liars, but you are a good little debater, TRR.

Globalization simply does not equal free trade. Why? Because TRR said so. But guess what? Globalization simply equals free trade, because I said so.

Fine. Live in your little bubble world where any resistance to globalization is bad because it will automatically lead to North Korea.

I've had enough. I guess if some are thinking in extremes and absolutes like the eponymous Sith from Star Wars, there is nothing to be done. No amount of explaining that anger towards the establishment is a legitimate feeling that can be used and misused will make you understand that depicting people whose feelings were misused as evil or malevolent will not help your cause at all.

[The Romulan Republic]

WTF is wrong with you?

CAN YOU FUCKING FINISH ONE POST WITHOUT ACCUSING YOUR OPPONENT OF LYING? EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THREAD.

I say someone is lying only when I think they are lying. If I am often the target of it, that is hardly my fault.

Although I will allow that it is possible that the posters in question simply failed utterly to understand my argument.

FFS, I am pretty much Camp Clinton here and reading your posts just make me want to smash something.

Did your parents teach you nothing about how to be civil and having manners?

Yes. Clearly you put a high premium on civility. That's why you're swearing at me in all caps.

Ultimately, why should I be civil to someone who is not civil toward me?

I am not a neoliberal or an advocate of free trade. In fact, my point was that globalization is not synonymous with free trade. But two posters have now insisted on trying to fit me into that box, even though it doesn't really fit the arguments that I am making. Why?

To my mind, dishonesty is arguably the more charitable interpretation, as the alternative is that they are being idiots.

Why aren't you ranting at K. A. Pital instead of me (other than your obvious personal dislike of me)?

And for that matter, since when did this board give two shits about civility?

[ArmorPierce]

I agree that anyone who backed Hillary over Bernie was an idiot if their goal was to win. If it was Hillary or bust, then they acted appropriately.

That said, I also agree that a Trump presidency won't be that bad. His antics were mostly car salesman antics and bravado and I do think that people and the media exaggerated his racist and sexist actions and offensive actions.

I actually project that he will be fairly socially liberal probably will act centrist to appease his base and economically centrist candidate. Obama care will be repealed and replaced with something else.

[The Romulan Republic]

In which K. A. Pital whines and says "I quit" like a two year old because he got called on misrepresenting an argument.

So, in the end, we are liars, but you are a good little debater, TRR.

I may not be the best debater, but I try to avoid deliberate misrepresentation of other peoples arguments. Which I believe is exactly what you did to me.

That or you simply fail to comprehend my point.

Globalization simply does not equal free trade. Why? Because TRR said so.

Hardly.

I'll take Wikipedia's definition of globalization (yeah, its lazy, but its more than you've bothered to provide in support of your definition):

"Globalization or globalisation (see spelling differences) is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.[1] Advances in transportation (such as the steam locomotive, steamship, jet engine, and container ships) and in telecommunications infrastructure (including the rise of the telegraph and its modern offspring, the Internet, and mobile phones) have been major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities.[2][3][4] Though many scholars place the origins of globalization in modern times, others trace its history long before the European Age of Discovery and voyages to the New World. Some even trace the origins to the third millennium BC.[5][6] Large-scale globalization began in the 19th century.[7] In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the connectivity of the world's economies and cultures grew very quickly.

The term globalization is very recent, only establishing its current meaning in the 1970s.[8] In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people, and the dissemination of knowledge.[9] Further, environmental challenges such as global warming, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and overfishing of the ocean are linked with globalization.[10] Globalizing processes affect and are affected by business and work organization, economics, socio-cultural resources, and the natural environment. Academic literature commonly subdivides globalization into three major areas: economic globalization, cultural globalization, and political globalization."

But guess what? Globalization simply equals free trade, because I said so.

So you admit that you either have no argument or are too lazy to make one?

Fine. Live in your little bubble world where any resistance to globalization is bad because it will automatically lead to North Korea.

My point is that you cannot abolish globalization without going to such extremes. Its not that any resistance to globalization will lead to North Korea. Its that any resistance to globalization will be either terribly destructive, or ineffective. My money's on "ineffective", not "We all end up like North Korea."

But as we have established, you will not debate honestly or accurately.

That or simply incapable of understanding my arguments.

I've had enough. I guess if some are thinking in extremes and absolutes like the eponymous Sith from Star Wars, there is nothing to be done. No amount of explaining that anger towards the establishment is a legitimate feeling that can be used and misused will make you understand that depicting people whose feelings were misused as evil or malevolent will not help your cause at all.

I am not saying that all Trump supporters or third partiers are evil, but I am not particularly inclined to be charitable to people who just threw civil liberties and equality under the bus.

The only one I see thinking in absolutes here, however, is you. You seem to view the entire world through the prism of "Globalization=corporatism and free trade, globalization is bad, globalization must be stopped by any means and at any cost", and to be unable or unwilling to engage honestly with any other point of view.

Edit: Or maybe you're just unable or unwilling to engage honestly with me.

[K. A. Pital]

My point is that you cannot abolish globalization without going to such extremes. Its not that any resistance to globalization will lead to North Korea. Its that any resistance to globalization will be either terribly destructive, or ineffective. My money's on "ineffective", not "We all end up like North Korea."

This is your point? Really? And you wonder why I said you only deal in absolutes? Okay. Let us go one more time.

So there is no way to stop globalization other than turning into North Korea? Is that what you also read on Wikipedia, or is that just your wishful thinking?

There are plenty of ways to stop globalization without becoming North Korea. Control borders. Restore the power of unions. Smack down transnational corporations with legislation that forces them to behave, and if they fail, let local competitors take their place. Raise wages. Reduce working hours.

All this can be done in a perfectly democratic fashion, dumbass.

What have I misrepresented here? I attacked your fucking "point" straight on. Go on and call me a liar now.

[The Romulan Republic]

My point is that you cannot abolish globalization without going to such extremes. Its not that any resistance to globalization will lead to North Korea. Its that any resistance to globalization will be either terribly destructive, or ineffective. My money's on "ineffective", not "We all end up like North Korea."

This is your point? Really? And you wonder why I said you only deal in absolutes? Okay. Let us go one more time.

So there is no way to stop globalization other than turning into North Korea? Is that what you also read on Wikipedia, or is that just your wishful thinking?

Neither. As I said, its a conclusion based on the reality of an interconnected world, particularly one connected by modern technology, which means that what happens in one country effects other countries. The degree to which that is the case my vary, but that basic reality does not.

My wishes have nothing to do with it. I'm not going to pretend that the world is other than what it is.

Liberty.
Isolationism.
Modern technology.

Pick two.

There are plenty of ways to stop globalization without becoming North Korea. Control borders. Restore the power of unions. Smack down transnational corporations with legislation that forces them to behave, and if they fail, let local competitors take their place. Raise wages. Reduce working hours.

I'd support every one of those to an extent (although only very limited border controls). Though I'm not sure how the last two would counteract globalization.

What I do not support is xenophobia/bigotry, excessive restrictions on freedom of movement, or disengagement from international politics.

Again, contrary to what you seem to keep insisting on, I am not an advocate of neoliberalism or unrestricted free trade (although some trade is obviously necessary and beneficial).

When I defend "globalization", I am referring more to a cultural and political globalization, to engagement with, and acceptance of, the rest of the world. That which has been thrown under the bus in the US election, for the sake of countering free trade and corporatism.

All this can be done in a perfectly democratic fashion, dumbass.

Certainly it can be done democratically (provided that the controls on the border are limited). It is also largely irrelevant to my underlying point.

What have I misrepresented here? I attacked your fucking "point" straight on. Go on and call me a liar now.

You are not really addressing my point, because you and I are using fundamentally different definitions of globalization. Which is fine (though I'll note that unlike me, you have not made even a token attempt to support your definition with anything other than personal opinion), but its a problem when you insist on debating against me as if I am using your definition, and characterizing me as a free trade corporatist neoliberal as a consequence.

That is part of the misrepresentation I am referring to, and why I called you a liar.

[K. A. Pital]

God you're dense. And this time I am not letting it slip.

You said North Korea is an extreme - and it is impossible to stop globalization without going to such extremes. I have quoted it just above.

Will you answer for your words? Or not?

There is a way to stop even cultural globalization, if that is what one wants. Why should a country give up on its own culture just to watch Hollywood shit day and night? Why do they have to submit to your culture - because it is a master culture? China has a quota of 35 Hollywood films per year or so. I say it is high time other nations make such quotas. And these quotas can also be introduced in a legal manner, if need be. That's all. And you will still be a long way from North Korea.

Political globalization (ceding national sovereignity to supranational bodies like the UN, WTO, EU etc.) can also be stopped and even democratically. Just refuse to submit to the authority of the EU and get out. Britain just did. You would argue Britain ceased to be a democracy? Became North Korea?

That is insulting. Your arguments are silly. Even restricting freedom of movement is perfectly possible, if a democracy does so desire.

So it is possible to stop all three types of globalization WITHOUT becoming North Korea. End of story.

Or let me ask you this. Japan - is it North Korea? Or not?

[aerius]

I'd say the problem here is that most people have a very idealized vision of what globalization is and does. They believe it's a way of bringing nations together through economics & trade, helping to raise poor nations out of poverty, and establishing closer ties between everyone to bring fellowship to man and an end to war.

The reality is very different. Globalization as practiced in our world right now really fucking sucks. Yes we have closer ties through trade & culture exchanges. In rich first world nations. Everyone else gets systematically exploited for resources & labour, and any trickle down benefits to them are completely incidental. We aim to keep those nations poor so that the labour & resource costs stay low which allows the transnational corporations & first world can maximize their profits. This is why K. A. Pital, myself, and a few others oppose it so strongly. Globalization in its current form is slavery and suffering for many millions, if not billions of people.

[ray245]

There is a way to stop even cultural globalization, if that is what one wants. Why should a country give up on its own culture just to watch Hollywood shit day and night? Why do they have to submit to your culture - because it is a master culture? China has a quota of 35 Hollywood films per year or so. I say it is high time other nations make such quotas. And these quotas can also be introduced in a legal manner, if need be. That's all. And you will still be a long way from North Korea.

The alternative argument is why should we limit our ability to enjoy foreign culture? Global communication of ideas via media had helped in changing people's mindset around the world. Homosexuality marriage would probably not be legalised in Taiwan if not for cultural globalisation changing people's mindset.

The younger generation like us has been trained our entire lives to prepare to live in a more global environment. We believed we can change many harmful practices of neoliberalism while staying connected to everyone. Now thanks to some older workers, we must deconstruct our global identities? What's next? Star Wars should not be part of the movie quota in Singapore?

[The Romulan Republic]

God you're dense. And this time I am not letting it slip.

Funny. Its you who seems categorically unable, or unwilling, to respond to my actual arguments.

You said North Korea is an extreme - and it is impossible to stop globalization without going to such extremes. I have quoted it just above.

Will you answer for your words? Or not?

I have endevored to explain my position again and again, but for some reason you just don't get it.

I will acknowledge that the way I phrased my argument may have been a bit extreme, a bit simplistic. But my underlying point, I think is valid.

You can pass all sorts of restrictions on trade, and freedom of movement, and so on, but you cannot really isolate your country from the rest of the world. You may limit or constrain globalization for a time, certainly, but you will not eliminate it, and past a certain point, you won't even be able to constrain it further without embracing despotism.

Of course its not "Completely unlimited globalization or North Korea, nothing in between". But the more you try to restrict globalization in the cultural and political sense, as a rule, the further you will walk down the path of despotism.

There is a way to stop even cultural globalization, if that is what one wants. Why should a country give up on its own culture just to watch Hollywood shit day and night? Why do they have to submit to your culture - because it is a master culture?

Ah, so now you're going to portray me as wanting to subjugate other cultures as well.

Hey, if you've can't win on the merits of the argument, just slander your opponent, I guess.

Cultures are not homogenous, unchanging blocks, carved in stone. They interact, exchange ideas, grow and merge and split off from one another. To the extent that they do not do so, they stagnate and become oppressive.

That is not the same as saying "I want Hollywood to define the culture for the entire planet", though its a cute, if rather tired, straw man. If anything, what I want is the fucking opposite.

China has a quota of 35 Hollywood films per year or so. I say it is high time other nations make such quotas. And these quotas can also be introduced in a legal manner, if need be. That's all. And you will still be a long way from North Korea.

But you would be engaging in a despotic course of action.

Again, of course it isn't "completely unrestricted and unlimited globalization or North Korea". But in general, the more you try to constrain globalization, in the cultural and political sense, the more you will move toward despotism.

What you are saying is that you would dictate what people are allowed to say or see (for their own good of course) in order to preserve tradition at the expense of choice and knowledge of the rest of the world.

So it seems that I was mistaken. You don't simply put opposition corporatism and free trade over all other concerns- you actively want to crack down on any foreign influences and repeal basic civil liberties, and see that as a positive in its own right.

Which means that on the most fundamental level, you are no different from the Alt. Right, from the people who want to "preserve" America as a white, conservative, Christian nation.

Political globalization (ceding national sovereignity to supranational bodies like the UN, WTO, EU etc.) can also be stopped and even democratically. Just refuse to submit to the authority of the EU and get out. Britain just did. You would argue Britain ceased to be a democracy? Became North Korea?

No, because my argument is not the straw man you are presenting it as.

That is insulting. Your arguments are silly. Even restricting freedom of movement is perfectly possible, if a democracy does so desire.

Restricting freedom of movement is one of the foremost tools of oppression.

So it is possible to stop all three types of globalization WITHOUT becoming North Korea. End of story.

Sure, you can try to restrict globalization without becoming like North Korea, as I already repeatedly said (and as I suspect you will ignore). But ultimately, your success will be limited. Your actions will still affect people in other parts of the world, and the rest of the world will still affect you. People will still access the culture of other countries, even if they have to pirate it on illegal websites. People will still cross your borders, even if they have to do it hidden in the back of a truck or hiking through the wilderness. And the more you try to preserve your illusory isolation, the more despotic you will become.

Or let me ask you this. Japan - is it North Korea? Or not?

I won't dignify your straw man with an answer.

[Crown]

Sanders on the line:

<snip>

Pocahontas bends the knee;

[Crown]

Protests have begun: CNN

Thousands take to the streets to protest Trump win

<snip>

Clinton rioters are just deplorable scumbags, they really are irredeemable.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sanders on the line:

<snip>

Pocahontas bends the knee;

Racist uses racist name-calling while gloating.

[Crown]

Racist uses racist name-calling while gloating.

It's a term of endearment.