Globalism describes a state of the world. Globalization measures the degree to which that state is in force.

If there is one thing the entire economics profession agrees on it is that globalization is a net good for the world. While some people are clearly hurt by it, far more people benefit.

It was just odd, too, that she used it sometimes, and then other times just said nothing at all. Almost like she didn't want people to fact-check certain things. It comes across very suspicious.

When Trump says that she was the one that actually started the Obama birther rumors and wanted Trump to start pushing it to the media ... silence.

When Trump talked about her failed trade agreement(s) and said she flip flopped after he came out against it ... silence.

I mean, if you're going to use the phase for a defense -- at least use it every time so we know you're not conceding the point!

Would think the polls will have a lot to do on how he acts. He was very restrained for this debate. No nicknames, no real cheap shots. If he drops in the polls I guessing you will hear let Trump be Trump and it will be nastier.

She clearly didn't start the birther movement, and her getting into the weeds about a couple of people associated with her is just going to confuse the viewer. Much better to let Trump ramble on a like a madman, and let the viewer come to the conclusion that 1) he sounds crazy and 2) even if everything he said is 100% true (which it wasn't), it doesn't excuse what he did all the way until a couple of weeks ago nor his refusal to apologize for it or explain what changed his mind.

Would say Hillary actually learned her lesson from the email issue on this one.

That's the scariest thing about a Trump-presidency. What if he gets in the office with, say, a republican congress and the economy and/or social climate absolutely tank...

Trump knows it couldn't possibly be his fault! So whose fault is it?!

China?
North Korea?
NATO?

Do you think he's just going to sit around and let those entities ruin HIS presidency?!

I was surprised how she handled that nuclear question btw. It was completely obvious that Trump had no clue what the current policy is, but she didn't attack him on that and mostly ignored the question herself.

Next level play to throw off the conspiracy nuts. She wants them to get suspicious and fact check everything, only to find out that Trump is fos virtually all the time

I didn't say she should go into a long explanation, but at least say something. In fact, that's a perfect time to say, "I'll let the fact-checkers explain in full detail, but your claim is absolutely false."

The way Trumpkins use "globalism," they're talking about a New World Order conspiracy to cede US sovereignty to a shadowy cabal, and international trade and immigration are proof that it is happening.

I'm really worried someone is finally going to call Sean Hannity and blow this thing wide open.

I just noticed I put a nefarious apostrophe into that post and now I'm too ashamed to think further on this topic.

Someone did talk to Hannity on air after the debate. That person's name was Trump and of course Hannity agreed with everything Trump said, lol.

I'm a little worried about Sean Hannity. Is he lonely? The way Trump tells it, he's sitting in his room eating chocolates and waiting for someone to call him.

Calling Sean Hannity only takes 25 cents and a few minutes out of your day. Won't you open your heart?

the accusation of globalism is the suspicion that someone might care a little about anyone other than white americans.

Go to Burning Man one year and suddenly your living that vape life.

Which is odd because a lot of globalization is just the contemporary name for imperialism.

so grover norquist is going to get popcorn lung?

net benefit for society?

Listening to right leaning talk radio. Lots of callers who were looking for an excuse to make voting for TRUMP remotely acceptible and found it. As predicted, because he didn't literally **** on the dais he did totally fine. Or fine enough at least.

You are technically correct in that the definition of imperialism includes "extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy," but it is pretty clear that if you are going to include modern trade agreements in this definition then we are also getting "imperialized" ourselves.

The Keepin' it 1600 folks called Hannity last night on their podcast, and he hung up on 'em, so let's just hope that he reacts the same way to all the other calls that are surely heading his way right now.

So who won the war of the day-of-debate gimmicks?

Hillary with her website doing real-time fact checking?

Or Trump's goofy snapchat filter?

I hope this was a misunderstanding. I would hate to think that Sean Hannity would turn his back on us now, when we need him most.

I was quite impressed with Hilary in this first debate. The real primary obstacle for her in getting elected is something that is not often mentioned often enough. IMHO, her primary obstacle is simply that she is a woman. Uneducated men tend to have psychological problems with having women in leadership roles. In this first debate she came off strong, solid, stable, knowledgeable, calm, and most of all, "Presidential". I wasn't sure she could do it as well as she did but she was excellent. If she keeps this up, it will mollify some of the this paternalistic male anxiety and win the election easily.

When El Salvador tries to stop a mining project by a Canadian mining company which is poisoning the water and the mining company uses the ISDS courts set up by trade deals to sue El Salvador for 2% of it's GDP, not for real damages, but for lost potential future profits while at the same time the US supports a right wing international business friendly government in El Salvador which murders its environmental activists it's just regular one way imperialization.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...old-free-trade

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/...s_killed_in_el

---

Likewise when international companies set up plantations for labor intense agriculture in Mexico, we eliminate the protections they had for their local agriculture, and we flood their market with our subsidized corn - all effectively killing their local agriculture industry and food security.

--

Likewise everything else. The rich and powerful obviously are the winners in trade deals. Some of that goes to a ruling class in usually undemocratic and often repressive governments in developing countries. Just like old times.

Was the word "benghazi" even said? "Crooked"? Pretty surprised after all this time of namecalling her in rallys etc that he wouldn't whip that out. Seems kinda cucky!