Namutree

Somewhere down this thread people (including myself) have seriously questioned the wisdom of the wall. Though I'm still shilling for Trump; even if I have doubts about the wall. The wisdom of the wall? You do not know the beauties of the wall, it's one of the greatest inventions! Beyond the wall though, he has proposed many things - have any of these been addressed? Guard Dog has mentioned his being for big government, I guess. That's about it. It's mostly pro-Trump people on this board. Some like me and WoD want Trump to help the country; while some like Barothmuk just want to see everything burn. I think Kainparker is on the pro-Trump side for lulz and to spite neo-liberals. And again, you have nothing to support your political beliefs other than the call that it's 'basic knowledge' - I repeat, I don't understand what you mean, please share this basic knowledge. Oh, ok. Here's a quick WIkipedia reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism The biggest difference is the emphasis on race in regards to White nationalism. Race is important to white nationalists since they explicitly desire a white nation where citizenship must be a white majority by design; where civic nationalist don't believe in a deliberate racial policy. In the context of the US for example: A civic nationalist like WoD doesn't care that illegal aliens are hispanic. His issue is that they crossed the border illegally and don't respect our laws. While a white nationalist in the US would want it to be a white country, and would object to the presence of all hispanics regardless of legality since they threaten to make us lose our white majority. TL;DR- White Nationalists want a given country to have a white majority (depending on their extremism white exclusivity), and Civic Nationalists don't care either way.

Somewhere down this thread people (including myself) have seriously questioned the wisdom of the wall. Though I'm still shilling for Trump; even if I have doubts about the wall. The wisdom of the wall? You do not know the beauties of the wall, it's one of the greatest inventions! Beyond the wall though, he has proposed many things - have any of these been addressed? Guard Dog has mentioned his being for big government, I guess. That's about it. It's mostly pro-Trump people on this board. Some like me and WoD want Trump to help the country; while some like Barothmuk just want to see everything burn. I think Kainparker is on the pro-Trump side for lulz and to spite neo-liberals.

It's "American nationalism", not "white nationalism". SPLC is a lying far-left organization. I don't know about how left anyone is, but if they think American civic nationalism is white nationalism; they are either 100% lying and not worth listening to, or are so hilariously moronic that they aren't worth listening to. Do you take these jokers seriously, Leferd? You are clearly a man of great credentials that support your opinion, or you have contradictory prose; care to share any of these? Who what now? I just spend a lot of my free time on the internet and know the difference between civic nationalism and white nationalism. You don't need any special credentials to know something so basic.

Somewhere down this thread people (including myself) have seriously questioned the wisdom of the wall. Though I'm still shilling for Trump; even if I have doubts about the wall.

It's "American nationalism", not "white nationalism". SPLC is a lying far-left organization. I don't know about how left anyone is, but if they think American civic nationalism is white nationalism; they are either 100% lying and not worth listening to, or are so hilariously moronic that they aren't worth listening to. Do you take these jokers seriously, Leferd?

Wow, this started off weak. I'd say that Hillary corrupted Obama's presidency as secretary of state more than he has has corrupted anyone or anything. She is corruption squared. You can't corrupt the already wholly corrupt. He's less guilty of this than your typical democrat. 100% wrong. The hostility to whites is a product of the progressive stack which has been a part of leftist thought for decades in the west. Obama didn't start crap. Also, I'd hardly call any of this a revolution. Definitely not. Especially if you're talking about the US which you claim is the core of this evil. In fact, we have too much policing, put waaaay more resources into the military than our defense demands (Seriously, even cutting our military budget into 1/4 of it's current levels would be reasonable), and our alliances badly need to be weakened or outright eliminated. If these are the 'adverse' effects of anti-whiteness... Sign me up. Voting for Trump doesn't mesh with your, 'weakening alliances is adverse' message. If over policing, excessive military force, and the strengthening of bad alliances are your preference; Hillary would be better than Trump.

I do, but no Ryan Reynalds related media.

They're looting and polluting; which is not the way. They need to hear what Captain Planet has to say.

I'd stay the same. Maybe with an even shorter attention span.

If by immortality you mean eternal youth, then you better believe I'd take immortality.

WOD this whole issue people have with changes to flags is really unnecessary, if you can be honest about the reality of the 2016 Lets be honest most people think a flag symbolically represents the nation, they place real value in it and think changes to it should only seen as negative. But what about changes to a flag to make it inclusive ? So changing the USA flag positive way would you support that? Like this? Actually if Puerto Rico ever votes to become a state we will get a new flag. Unless we kick one of the others out first. You know California has been a real pill to put up with lately. It would be pretty lulzy to kick out California only to keep Texas.

If democrats aren't excited about a candidate (and not many are excited about Hillary) then they usually don't bother to show up. The same is not true of Republicans. Even many of the republicans that dislike Trump will likely still show up and vote for him to keep the SC out of leftist hands if nothing else.

Why use a nuke to kill one lady? He could just label her a traitor and have a drone kill her.

Kinda funny about that old guy talking about how he feels that Trump is the last chance to preserve the culture he grew up in. He really, really, isn't. That America is dead and gone. Really he should be voting Hillary, at least then he could keep the "tradition" of fighting extremely costly wars for absolutely no good reason.

Not quite. Trump has no issue with Mexicans; where Reagan did have issues with communists.

Did he ever finish his e-book? I have to know what Obama and his cronies are doing to Equestria!!!

If anything it's a joke video and nothing to get serious over. Someone like yourself getting serious over this video is quite amusing. Did you see me analyze some dumb statement by a stupid brony about applying objectivism to My Little Pony? Taking stupid crap way too seriously is something I like to do. Also, how Hulk Hogan's song applies to Trump's anti-neocon foreign policy is serious business!

I thought the message of the video is fight for American rights since that's what he's been saying in person and the video shows American icons. I don't see other countries shown in the video. From the song, "I am a real American. Fight for the rights of EVERY MAN." Every man is not just Americans. The idea that America needs to fight for the rights of others is a driving force behind the very kind of foreign policy Trump is trying to put an end to. It's shining beacon on a hill rhetoric, and that ain't Trump's style.

Volo please can we not play the old " white people are victims of awful political persecution " ....this is not GG, lets not try to exaggerate the reality Yeah, white people are only victims of persecution by the left, which is only about half the population. The right thinks white people are swell because they were responsible for the rights, culture, and technology that allows for the highest standard of living in the world. Persecution might be a bit strong.

It doesn't really suit Trump. "Fight for the rights of every man" <- That ain't Trump. Trump is too much of nationalist to give a crap about the rights of foreigners. It's that, "Let's fight for others!" mentality that drives neocon foreign policy to a certain extent.

Here's where you lose me. It's not losing what he can achieve, it is in fact, the only way he can achieve anything. If they think they can win without changing; the DNC will never change. They will only change if they have absolutely no choice. If Bernie doesn't remove his endorsement, he won't have to worry about losing his influence, because he will have no influence to lose. Everything he has fought for will amount to nothing if he does anything less. Even if the dems lose this time, they'll go: DNC person 1: Hillary was a bad choice, next time we should go with some one more likable. DNC person 2: Should we clean house like the Bernie people want? DNC person 1: Do we HAVE to? DNC person 2: No. It's still possible to win without doing so. DNC person 1: Then no. We just need a more likable candidate. Oh, and we need to make sure more people like Bernie Sanders don't show up again to make a fuss. There are too many people in camp C). The dems NEED them to win an election now or ever again. Not cleaning up their act next election cycle will be a non-option. It is impossible for Dems to win if they don't reform. They will reform in such a scenario; out of necessity if nothing else. What do you think they would do, quietly go extinct? Some will try and blame the Bernie or Busters, but so what- they ignored Bernie and the more rational will know that they would literally never vote Hillary. And that endorsement allows pro Bernie people to run for the positions of power Nope. Bernie types will be purged from what little they have, measures will be taken to ensure they don't return, and they won't get any power of any kind ever again. It's now or never.

Holy crap. This is worse than I thought.

What a coincidence!

If Bernie goes that route too overtly by refusing to endorse or running as an independent he is sacrificing whatever his movement can achieve within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party does not want to reform itself, it wants to stay with its vested interests- that's why they are vested interests, after all. Here's where you lose me. It's not losing what he can achieve, it is in fact, the only way he can achieve anything. If they think they can win without changing; the DNC will never change. They will only change if they have absolutely no choice. If Bernie doesn't remove his endorsement, he won't have to worry about losing his influence, because he will have no influence to lose. Everything he has fought for will amount to nothing if he does anything less. Even if the dems lose this time, they'll go: DNC person 1: Hillary was a bad choice, next time we should go with some one more likable. DNC person 2: Should we clean house like the Bernie people want? DNC person 1: Do we HAVE to? DNC person 2: No. It's still possible to win without doing so. DNC person 1: Then no. We just need a more likable candidate. Oh, and we need to make sure more people like Bernie Sanders don't show up again to make a fuss. There are too many people in camp C). The dems NEED them to win an election now or ever again. Not cleaning up their act next election cycle will be a non-option. It is impossible for Dems to win if they don't reform. They will reform in such a scenario; out of necessity if nothing else. What do you think they would do, quietly go extinct?

The problem is that if he lost he was supposed to lose fair and square. The DNC giving Clinton an advantage nullifies any obligation he had to support Clinton. I don't begrudge Sanders giving Clinton the endorsement. It's very easy to say he should have pulled a Cruz, but then if Cruz isn't a bona fide sociopath without an ounce of integrity in his body he does an excellent impression of one. Sanders pledged to support Clinton when/ if the time came and he followed through on that despite obviously being deeply unhappy about it. Thing is Sanders did lose; he might have lost in sketchy circumstances but lose he did. If Clinton wins he has to work with her, and if Clinton loses then her supporters and the entire Democratic Party structure will be looking to set blame and specifically set blame on anyone who isn't them. We only need to look back to 2000 to see them scapegoat Nader- which to an extent the Greens never recovered from- despite more democrats voting for Bush in Florida than Nader, and far more not voting at all. Sanders does not want to be Nader 2.0 and that is understandable if he wants to achieve anything. For better or (very much likely) worse the Democrat party is here to stay, if he wants to revolutionise politics- and actually do it rather than talk about it- he has to preserve his movement and reform from within. As it stands he, or his successor more likely, is in a good position should Hillary lose to get the nomination in 2020 and real reform in the interim. Strongly disagree. If I bet a guy $20 that I can beat him in a foot race, and he proceeds to shoot me in the knees during said race, I don't owe him squat. The DNC cheated; his loss doesn't count. Sanders and his supporters need to show that they aren't pushovers. "Get your act together or we won't vote with you. Clean house or go extinct." Needs to be the message. The democrats can't scapegoat Sanders like they did Nader because: A) Sanders has too many supporters. If they do that, Trump will win again, and the democrats will be finished as a party. B) Sanders would just be standing up to the corruption. Not his fault the DNC is corrupt. Nader wasn't protesting being cheated by the DNC. If the Sanders and his supporters let the DNC get away with this, the DNC will never change. In fact, they'll double down. You have to give them no choice. "Cheat and you lose, period." That's how you fix things.