A Nation based on disunity will not for much longer lead the world stage.

Yes they do. Take at least a peek at history.

 

I would claim that both are temporarily staggered Empires. The UK still gets itself involved in foreign affairs pretty regularly, and Japan is really going to be China's primary enemy, not the Americans.

 

Of course. Sometimes they have multiple meanings. Hence the problem of equivocation.

Of course we are. No other nation has expanded as much as we have in the recent past, and none has more influence over global politics than we do.

 

I am somewhat familiar with history. Which long lasting empire are you referring to?

 

The United States is not an empire, and Wikipedia is not a legitimate source.

 

Having power and influence is not the definition of an empire. Successful nationhood does not equate to an empire. The United States is not an empire. Words have meaning.

 

You can keep repeating that, but it's not very convincing.

Okay, professor.

 

This is the source Wikipedia was using for that information:
https://www.epw.in/journal/2004/44/commentary/americas-invisible-empire.html

 

Most of the world agrees that the power and willingness to determine the fates of other nations based almost on a whim makes us an Empire. You disagree. Okay, that's fine, you're just going to find yourself arguing semantics a lot. Sounds annoying.

But let's move past the semantic argument and just give you the wheel here: What would it take for you to define something as an "Empire?"

 

Well if words have meaning would you please define what an empire is? Remember don't use Wikipedia as a source.

 

How about the Roman empire, the British Empire, the Byzantine Empire, do you Gyptian empire, the Hittites, the ottoman empire, the Muegel empire, the Persian empire, the Incas, liars, Aztec, the Babylonians, etc

 

Talk to text does not work well

 

Most of the world that understands the English language does not.

 

Buddy, it comes down to this simple fact: I can find dictionary definitions of the word "Empire" and explain how they apply to the United States all day long. Your fixation on semantics is not going to go anywhere, and it's just plain boring.

 

You seem to be vague about exactly what you think those responsibilities are.

But you note that welfare programs and infrastructure were underfunded. But you fail to note that is primarily because the Republcians have consistantly tried to destroy the one, and steadfastly ignored the other.

And note, that for all but two of those thirty five years, there was a Republican Congress, a Republican President, or both.

 

Not that I agree with Richard's sentiments about the durability of Empires, but too many of these examples are actually proof of his claim. The Aztec Empire was extremely short-lived, the Incas were never an "empire" at all (strange that you apply to term so liberally to foreigners, but so strictly to the United States), the Egyptian and Hittite Empires, as major imperial systems, only lasted for a small handful of centuries (three or four depending on how you count), the Byzantine Empire, following the arrival of the Slavs to the north and Muslims to the south and east, was an "Empire" in name only, consisting primarily of Greek-speaking enclaves, and the British and Mughal Empires lasted only a few centuries.

The Ottoman and Roman Empires lasted long enough to be borderline cases. The only really long-lived Imperial systems that still exist today are Russia, China, and Iran. Some are re-emerging, and this last four generations or so can be seen as an interim for many of them.

The Turks, Japanese, Mexicans, and French all have particularly bright prospects in the near term.

The brightest prospects of all belong to us.

 

I think that you're misreading him if you think that skewering of the Republicans is going to mean anything to him. I don't know who the king of neo-liberalism is, but both Reagan and Obama can certainly stake their claims.

 

Exactly. In the case of the Republicans(and neo-conservatism) their pitiful military planning and overbloated military budgets have most certainly contributed to the crisis. As for the "vagueness", the only remote time there was an attempt at reforming of our social welfare programs was when Kennedy was still alive! Seriously, that was the last time any of this was broached pragmatically with any real intent at a solution(R.I.P JFK)

One might think that because I didn't want the government to capsize, that I had become a "Trumper". I was no more a Trumper than wanting Obama to successfully leave office had me supporting POTUS Obama(who also did absolutely nothing about the issues of his day.). The "Nationalist" part of being a Nationalist, is that I don't want the government to collapse even if its destined for its absolute collapse.

Even if it's wobbly, if it's standing it can be reformed much easier than social collapse. Karl Marx's theory of chaotic reform doesn't exist. What usually happens is Venezuela.

 

You can try to change the actual meaning of the word to fit your personal bias, but it will NOT alter reality.

 

It's not about "fitting a bias," it's about describing a reality. The United States has more influence over many countries than their own political leadership does. Even our softer measures, like diplomatic isolation and sanctions, can be enough to bring a foreign government to it's knees. We've taken stiffer measures to topple entire governments, and will again.

If you don't think we're an Empire, you're a little too beholden to colors on maps.

 

-Thus the creation of a new myth, the myth of America's revival(not so much its past.) EX: I'd have long ditched the Star-Spangled Banner, and I feel like Tis of Thee is a far more unifying song.(And other pro-Nationalistic songs such as Your Land is my Land and America The Beautiful also resonated). But Tis of Thee is more unifying IMO.

But you are right, it's a call more for a Napoleon/Caesar creation of a State, rather than necessarily deployment of military forces for consequence. Actually, America is well positioned to focus on its financial and domestic building, and to catch up in the new race, the race for monetary control. Right now, we're ceding that race to the Eurasian sphere of influence.

You're right that we have the three corridors: The historical liberal elite/snobbish East(which now has pockets in Coastal California up to the Northwest.)(I was born a Northerner, so I started out as a Liberal and I feel I can relate in significant ways to appeal to them.)

The Midwest will probably be the easiest to get to sign aboard, and then I feel I can make an argument for cohesion between the Southern States/Northern ones. Southern States see themselves as on the outside of the cosmopolitan(and foolish political commentary hasn't helped with the matter.). If I can advance the idea of economic vitality to the Southern States, then maybe I can break through in a unity quest

 

I was aware of that. Just pointing out the obvious.

 

Which ones?

 

Our government’s actions say differently.