Nationalism exists in the US but it is not the same concept as you and I know. The immigrants are also from everywhere not just from Europe.

Because of many reasons but the shortest thing I can tell you is that 99% of the population is going through hardship, many of them living hand to mouth and are up to their necks in debt while 1% of the population holds all the money. In other words the "opportunity" belonged to a very small minority.

The land didn't belong to the English for them to liberate it from. The land belonged to the Americans (which they now call "Indians" or "natives") and they took it from these so called natives by force and committed genocide by ethnically cleansing the indigenous population (murdered millions of them). That makes them the colonizers of someone else's lands.

It's not that simple, as I said initially this looks to me more like a political fight and also it depends on a lot of factors, so the answer to your question is not a simple yes or no.

Lowering energy prices using Arab dictators and attracting investors, improving domestic production, and stuff like that would be arguments that could be made in favor of cutting rates. But a lot of other arguments can be made against it.

There is also the ginormous national debt and the increasing budget deficit of the US government. Something Trump claims to be covering with the tariffs he is taking but without increasing taxes it only covers a small part of it not all as he claims. That deficit means guaranteed inflation, something cutting rates could maximize.

Then there is the economic war Trump is waging against the world (one part of it is the tariffs) while the world is dumping the dollar.
Meanwhile during dedollarisation, if they cut rates the world would hasten its dedollarisation and will also more importantly dump the bonds (the US debt these countries are bag-holding). Also since the deficit I mentioned above is covered by creating debt and selling it, if there are less countries buying that debt, they can't cover that deficit; remember countries like China have already dumped hundreds of billions of dollars of their bonds, with lower interest rates they'll have even more incentive to liquidate more of what they are left with.

Nationalism exists in the US but it is not the same concept as you and I know. The immigrants are also from everywhere not just from Europe.

Because of many reasons but the shortest thing I can tell you is that 99% of the population is going through hardship, many of them living hand to mouth and are up to their necks in debt while 1% of the population holds all the money. In other words the "opportunity" belonged to a very small minority.

The land didn't belong to the English for them to liberate it from. The land belonged to the Americans (which they now call "Indians" or "natives") and they took it from these so called natives by force and committed genocide by ethnically cleansing the indigenous population. That makes them the colonizers of someone else's lands.

It's not that simple, as I said initially this looks to me more like a political fight and also it depends on a lot of factors, so the answer to your question is not a simple yes or no.

Lowering energy prices using Arab dictators and attracting investors, improving domestic production, and stuff like that would be arguments that could be made in favor of cutting rates. But a lot of other arguments can be made against it.

There is also the ginormous national debt and the increasing budget deficit of the US government. Something Trump claims to be covering with the tariffs he is taking but without increasing taxes it only covers a small part of it not all as he claims. That deficit means guaranteed inflation, something cutting rates could maximize.

Then there is the economic war Trump is waging against the world (one part of it is the tariffs) while the world is dumping the dollar.
Meanwhile during dedollarisation, if they cut rates the world would hasten its dedollarisation and will also more importantly dump the bonds (the US debt these countries are bag-holding). Also since the deficit I mentioned above is covered by creating debt and selling it, if there are less countries buying that debt, they can't cover that deficit; remember countries like China have already dumped hundreds of billions of dollars of their bonds, with lower interest rates they'll have even more incentive to liquidate more of what they are left with.