‘The guys on the far right’ are not happy with Trump’s DACA decision

DACA have lower crime rate than the native population.

 

As long as the border remains wide open for illegal aliens to bring six year olds here then the only sane policy to deport all illegal aliens

And until the wall is built that the only policy that makes sense

 

Though whites and blacks have higher criminal rates than the browns in these categories

That is you doing that, actually

You are entitled to your opinion, though we are talking about children who were brought here by their parents

Non sequitur

 

Dreamers won't be deported and the wall will not be built

 

So I have heard

And if they get permeant residency I hope they keep it up

But without the wall they may be waiting a long time for that coveted green card

 

Don't bet the rent money on that

 

I own my places.

 

Where'd this come from? I didn't bring up racism, you did. I don't lump neo-nationalists in with racists, but racists clearly believe neo-nationalism gets them much closer to the America they want. Ironically, you sit here and accuse me of not wanting to actually debate when all you're doing is whining about racism. So let's debate. From your perspective, what good is neo-nationalism?

 

Of course you do

Every liberal on the internet claims to be above average

 

One only needs to look at the countries run by progressive liberals to figure it out.

 

Too bad the envy. Work hard, manage your many frugally, and you can do as well.

 

I expressed no envy

"Skepticism" is the word you are searching for

Not that liberals can't own their home

A few undoubedly do in spite of their devotion to government assistance

You could be one of the rare libs who makes personal claims that are actually true

I have no way of knowing in either case

 

You don't know. But the reader can tell you are suffering from cognitive dissonance. I am not a lib, and you are certainly not mainstream.

 

I never heralded that neo-nationalism was good. I didn't start this thread. I could debate either side, but I am much more curious what you think is bad about neo-nationalism as a jumping off point for debate, without bringing race into it... because based on your posting history, I kinda feel like you lump them all together. So, without bringing in hate groups or using words like "xenophobia" as a placeholder for "racist", what is your problem with nationalism, and what makes it neo in your view? How does todays nationalism differ from that of the past?

 

Here is what I actually wrote, which says nothing about race despite your smug but ignorant mischaracterization of my position on the topic:

As for the difference relative to traditional nationalism, today's neo-nationalism is far more bitter and angry toward the world rather than excited about national progress toward anything. It is much more "anti-" something than "pro-" anything. Trump represented this perfectly throughout his campaign the way he blamed China, Mexico, immigrants, Muslims, the press, etc. for all of America's problems. He did a lot in the way of finger-pointing and very little in the way of vision-casting. Under the traditional ideology, nationalists could still be globalists; they could advocate for free trade and a free press. Today's neo-nationalists assume they're being screwed by everyone who doesn't share their narrow view of the world. Not only is it a failure of an ideology, but it will only result in more bitterness because it can't comprehend how the world really works.

 

Just a heads up: Bannon is back with more, not happy with Trump's chumminess with the Democrats. Here's a snapshot of his website this morning.


Stay strong, though! Keep backing your man "Amnesty Don," no matter how squishy he gets on these issues!

 

You really ought to limit your consumption of tabloid news ... rots your brain. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/350644-white-house-there-will-be-no-amnesty-under-trump

 

You are missing the point entirely. We'll see whose influence is broader, thehill.com or Bannon and his team of trolls at breitbart. Are you sure thehill.com isn't just liberal-run "fake news?"

 

All I can do is provide you more credible sources, with quotes straight from the horses mouth. If Bannons your guy, who am I to argue? http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...t-the-wall-we-will-become-the-obstructionists

 

I personally read an array of credible sources, but Trump said they are all liars and his minions cheered. Then Trump hired one of the chief disseminators of fake news and conspiracy theory as his strategic adviser because he's one of the nutjobs Trump's minions actually believe. Now that nutjob is telling his minions that Trump is "Amnesty Don."

The point of this thread was to discuss the question of who better knows and influences Trump's followers. Granted, Fox News is still as faithful to Trump as a state-run propaganda bureau, but Trump never made Roger Ailes an official part of his administration. They will be able to counter some of Bannon's assaults, but if DACA is signed into law I think there's going to be a rift among Trump minions.

 

Yeah. You presume "minions" are influenced by hyperbole being spewed by media pundits, right or left leaning. Left leaning MSM has convinced you Bannonites represent the bulk of Trump supporters. I disagree.

 

I don't presume it, I base it on the fact they believed (and some still believe) all sorts of idiotic nonsense about Obama, Trump, and Hillary. Some people still think Trump is/was a good businessman (lol). Where'd they get that idea?

 

I dunno ... I'm afraid you're going to have to find oneof the tens of millions of Bannons followers that you believe he has, and pose that question. Shouldn't be too difficult to locate just 1 ...

 

That's right. And in winning he showed that this "new Democrat Majority" based on demographics, was a pile of horse ****.

Democrats lost by neglecting working-class voters while catering primarily to racist “identity politics.”

The Racist's conclusion is: “The concerns of people of color, should be driving politics today and into the future.”

https://www.amazon.com/Brown-New-White-Demographic-Revolution/dp/1620971151

These clowns take the percentage of Americans that the U.S. census defines as “minorities” and project their past voting habits into the next decade and beyond, and conclude with a very sunny version of the Democrats’ prospects. There are oare few major problems with this assuming:
1) The census prediction of a “majority-minority” America—slated to arrive in 2044—is deeply flawed.
2) So is the notion that ethnic minorities will always and forever continue to back Democrats in Obama-like numbers.

The U.S. census makes a critical assumption that undermines its predictions of a majority-nonwhite country. It projects that the same percentage of people who currently identify themselves as “Latino” or “Asian” will continue to claim those identities in future generations. In reality, that’s highly unlikely. History shows that as ethnic groups assimilate into American culture, they increasingly identify themselves as “white.”

When they re-identify as "white" they are identifying with the rest of us that are post-racial and form the vast majoirity in this Great Nation.

Whiteness is not a genetic category, it’s a social and political construct. A century ago, Irish, Italians, and Jews were not seen as whites. “This town has 8,000,000 people,” a young Harry Truman wrote his cousin upon visiting New York City in 1918. “7,500,000 of ’em are of Israelish extraction. 400,000 wops and the rest are white people.” But by the time Truman became president, all those immigrant groups were considered “white.” That is, they no longer identified with a racial identity, they were simply post racial. And since there is no check box on the Census form, those that ientify as post racial in America, check "white" and will continue to do so. Latinos and Asians will follow much the same pattern.

In the 2010 Census, 53 percent of Latinos identified as “white,” as did more than half of Asian Americans of mixed parentage. In future generations, those percentages are almost certain to grow. According to a recent Pew study, more than one-quarter of Latinos and Asians marry non-Latinos and non-Asians, and that number will surely continue to climb over the generations.

The census projections are straight-out wrong and Democrats have happily mislead themselves. They love the false assumption that Asians and Latinos will continue to vote at an overwhelming clip for Democrats. That false view underpins the whole idea of a “new American majority,” ignores the diversity that already prevails among voters lumped together as “Latino” or “Asian.” Cuban-Americans in Miami vote very differently from Mexican-Americans in Los Angeles; immigrants from Japan or Vietnam come from starkly different cultures than those from South Korea or China. Asian voters favoring Republicans by 50 to 49 percent in 2014.

In Texas, Senator John Cornyn bested his Democratic opponent among Latinos in 2014 by a small margin, and Senator Richard Burr won 49 percent of the Latino vote in North Carolina last year over a strong liberal challenger. In Florida, Marco Rubio almost won the Latino vote in 2016. Those are not the kinds of numbers on which you can build a Dem's mythical majority.

Going forward, the real question is whether Democrats can succeed in crafting a message and an agenda that steers clear of racist stereotyping that assumes people of color will all vote alike.

Democrats ignored the facts about American politics. From Andrew Jackson to Barack Obama they have won national elections by convincingly portraying themselves as the candidates of the middle class. Hillary ran against the Working and Middle Class and ended up ass over tea kettle. This will be the fate of every Democrat, or Republican, that follows her dimwitted example. And another thing, where did the idea ever come from that Hillary was anything other than dimwitted and stupid?

Trump ran as the candidate of the “silent majority,” who promised to “make America great again” in the face of opposition from the establishments of both parties, elitists that hate him and the Electorate.

Hillary ran on race, ethnicity, and gender. Everyone that follows her example, will lose as well.

If Democrats try to win future elections by relying on narrow racial-ethnic targeting, they will lose.

This thinking runs contrary to the racist strategy touted by Democrats who believe that a majority-minority nation is a guarantee of victory. Dems are wrong.

Today's Truth Bomb.

You're Welcome!

https://newrepublic.com/article/144...h-argued-demographics-favored-democrats-wrong

Trump ran right down the middle with the majority of Post Racial America. Everyone that follows him will win as well. His border Security focuses on controlling illegal entry into this country. Controlling legal entry so it benefits those of us who are already here and gets the gang bangers criminals and bad hombres, the hell out!

 

I didn't mischaracterize anything. I simply posted about bannon rejecting racism in society and politics. I guess you didn't notice that your thread contained mischaracterizations about Bannon and trump, or surely you would have cirrected them with the same bitterness you attempt to correct me with. Or maybe not.

Nationalism, as I see it, puts ones nation before others in all agreements. Trade and otherwise. Trumps position has been that the US has entered into terrible agreementd that penalise us, more than those nations mentioned, and he wishes to renegotiate those deals. How and where do you disagree? Please pick one example for brevities sake. This gives you an advantage.