Captain America

Redistribution of wealth, an open agenda.

A foundational cornerstone of the progressive agenda. Income inequality is equivalent to persecution of the masses, in their enlightened eyes. Universal basic income, free education, and free health care are simply pillars of a just society. Non-citizen voting and open borders, are provisions for equality and a more just world. If you are here, you are entitled to the same rights as all Americans, they proudly proclaim. We are the richest nation in history. Yet, they may be pulling the wool over our eyes. They may not be promoting American interests and looking out for the middle class, as they claim.

Here is why. The world population is 7.7 billion. The US population is about 330 million. Therefore, the US population is only about 4.3% of the global population. What about wealth? It is often claimed we are the richest nation in history. WE do have the largest economy, about 20 trillion dollars. But the IMF says we are tenth in per capita GDP. Luxembourg leads the western world in Per capita GDP. Their projected GDP for 2019 is a rather small $77.5 billion. Germany is number sixteen and the UK twenty sixth. Japan is 28th and China is seventy third. India is one hundred nineteenth. It is fair to say the US is relatively well off when compared to the two countries with the world’s largest populations. Given that income inequality is immoral, so we are told, Should America work to lift the living standards in India and China, or should we worry about Americans and the living standards at home? This appears to be a moral and ethical dilemma for globalists. Open borders look more hazardous in this light.

Needless to say, America has been in relative decline for decades. The economic hegemony we enjoyed as the Arsenal of Democracy and subsequent to World War 2 has dissipated as our manufacturing economy eroded. Free trade has been supported for generations. Maybe we can call it the ongoing Marshall Plan. Now, new leadership is promoting fair trade. He attempts to restore balance to trade and stop wealth redistribution on a global basis. The transference of American wealth and jobs to other countries. Obviously, he is a villain, maybe even a puppet of our adversaries. If he is successful, will the past leaders be exposed for serving global interests as opposed to American interests? Is this a constitutional crisis?

Enough about prosperity, we must move on to fairness. Open borders are humane. We must take care of those less fortunate, and if they are here, they should be represented. Yet we must resist foreign influence in our elections, especially Russian interference. Never mind the Chinese money that supported Clinton as the process to enter the WTO began. Clinton was no Chinese puppet seeking global government. Hillary never supported open borders and Trump did not really win. He stole the helm of our ship named destiny, turned towards America First and away from Globalism. He really needs to be impeached, not them. WE need his tax returns, nothing to worry about with the globalist cabal. Their actions are transparent while kept in the dark.

Finally, our health and well being should be trusted to the government. If we believe that something so intrinsically private as our health, can be trusted to corrupt insurance companies we obviously are not clear thinking and rational. All this talk of investigating our leaders. How could we possibly think that government cannot be trusted? Our leaders certainly do not trust each other, but we can believe in them as a whole. Seems an odd conclusion, for rational persons.

Globalism, or anti Americanism, or anti individualism, promotes wealth distribution, open borders, universal voting and free health care. Not because these policies will lead to a better America, but instead to more uniform world. One world, not many individual nations. Take the European union as the example, so many countries and cultures rolled up in to one EU. The Maastricht treaty was signed in February of 1992. The Brexit Referendum took place in June of 2016. Trump was elected in November. Both independence movements have faced stiff opposition. Both countries inextricably linked by a common history and common values. The Magna Carta and the Bill Of rights. Globalism versus nationalism. Progressives versus conservatives, humanists versus Christians, faith in government versus faith in God.

The progressive agenda from climate change to healthcare, is not for Americans. Antithetically, it is an agenda to create a global community of uniform culture, values and control. Imagine merging the world religions into one homogeneous culture, which direction must we shift to in order to unite? It is an agenda to create a more equitable standard of living for the world, not a higher standard of living for the American middle class. Captain America is putting America first, protecting the American way of life and succeeding. Nothing can we worse for the Globalists.


If being here is “wasting your time”, then why bother to reply? Isnt that an even bigger waste of your time?

For the life of me, I cant figure out why some attempt to ridicule or belittle posters for stating things that they dont agree with.

To me, his point was clearly made and well articulated. If you disagree, please state why. After all. this is a discussion forum. If you dont care to discuss this topic, why bother replying at all?

It appears that you reply with condescension so that you can hinder his speech. Do you feel that is appropriate? Or, is he so far beneath you that his feelings do not matter?


People need a reason to see themselves type, no matter what. They need this kind of attention, because they need to let others know how smart they fancy themselves, and they neeeed to speak as if your every word is meant to compensate them for their special little time in front of you, and how dare you speak differently.

Long time, @bootz, and great OP. Unfortunately, I have no arguments with it. lol

1 Like

Great post @bootz;

One thing about being in the military stationed overseas is that you really see how the poor in other parts of the world live. You then become callous to the poor in the United States.

I see the whole issue as trying to use emotion and guilt to pressure someone into voting for them. Look at me. I felel bad so I am pure. You do not feel bad so you are a terrible person.

If you have a lot of money, you are still a good person as long as you feel bad about it. Look at Warren Buffet. He feels bad because he pays less money in taxes than his secretary. Since he feels bad, he is a good person and can keep his wealth.

On the other hand, those rich, evil republicans and business owners; they dont feel bad and as a result are evil. They need to be humbled. They should have all their wealth taken away and given to the poor.

No one will ever put a dollar amount on what constitutes “Rich” or what constitutes “Poor”

There are really VERY few people calling for true income equality and open borders. They are in fact, statistically insignificant. Painting gray arguments in black and white only serves to muddy the waters.


Really? It looks like a lot more than “VERY few” to me. If there are in fact very few calling for open boarders, then why are we not securing them?

Also, if there are very few calling for “income equality”, why do you suppose there are 147 million hits on google? Or are you caveating it by using the word “True” in front of it?

The word true is there for a reason of course, yes, because it’s a ridiculous accusation that the right makes on the left almost daily. Same with open borders, VERY few are calling for open borders. It’s all ■■■■■■■■■ It’s common knowledge that democrats offered much more than republicans asked for in border patrol budgets etc. but that didn’t include a bigass wall so the right went nutz under Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric.

We are not fixing it because it’s more beneficial to politicians to fight over it.

nor do they define free vs oppressed.

maybe you need to listen to the candidates on the left like the senator from new York who recently called for no detentions. perhaps think of the implications of universal basic income and redistribution, or AOC calling for no property.

the concepts outlined in the OP speak to the application of local standards to a global community. in such light the US is the top 1% more or less and we would have to be punished as the elite.

a simple application of leftist policies to the global population as opposed to America.

the few that are calling for it are running for president and already hold office. There is one president. only one does he count as few?

Universal basic income would in no way EVER approach income equality, no way, no how not ever. That is not it’s aim nor anyone’s aim.

The concepts outlined in the OP do not reflect reality, but rather a caricaturized conception of what the left wants.


Tell me then, what is income equality.
what are open borders?

explain how there is no evidence of a globalist order?

where does it begin and where does it end.

is it just for Americans or for everyone?

you seem to know what the 23 candidates want.

Income equality is self explanatory, nobody is calling for that.

Open borders is what Hillary fantasized about some far off day generations into the future where people’s work trucks fly over the border at sixty miles an hour. Nobody is calling for that, not even her, it was just a fantasy she knows will never happen in our or our children’s lifetimes.

The only globalist order is in the corporate world which has WAY too much power in governments everywhere. There is some agreement between myself and Trump in that arena, but he is too damn simple minded to deal with it effectively. Not that past presidents have been stellar there either.

America isn’t going anywhere.

Seems odd that so many people who think the border is our most emergenciest emergency can’t spell “border”.

1 Like

So instead of addressing the issue of whether or not many of the left are actually supporting open borders, all you have to address is the spelling I used?

If that is all you got, why bother replying? Oh wait a second. I remember now. If you cant refute the point, label the person who made the point stupid or racist…preferably both.

I’m not labeling you stupid or racist. You said the left supports open borders, onus is on you to show any evidence of such.

I just find it weird that I probably see it spelled “boarders” here like 10 times per week.

it must be dark in that cave. which direction is the sun?

all you have to do professor is notify and explain the mistakes. that makes a discussion.

Gillibrand says she would stop detention of illegals, that is not exactly open borders but pretty close. semantics.

the list goes on to AOC, Keith Ellison …………

it seems to some, that if you oppose inequality you support equality. where am I wrong?

so if I am for women’s rights am I necessarily pro choice?

If I am against war, might I be against murder?

if I am for equality might I be against inequality?