Californians Suggest ‘Calexit’ in Wake of Donald Trump Win

There's been talk of what a mistake it was to demonize Romney in the last election. Liberals cried wolf, and Trump's rhetoric suggests he could be the real thing. But maybe he was just kidding to manipulate dumb racists into voting for him.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds good actually. You can have Prineville in all its glory, but we get Bend. I don't want to cross a border to go skiing when I'm up there.

 

I doubt there is more than a small Minority of people supporting a secessionist movement.

 

Seems that is what a lot of your people have been looking into

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...te-crash-donald-trump-president-a7406106.html

We had a lot of that here after Brexit with people wanting to take out their Irish Citizenship - though in that case it possibly was simply to keep open the options of EU benefits.

Typical Trump mentality unfortunately - just wanting rid of your fellow citizens who are different. If the US does not get over it's us and them mentality, it's future looks dim.

As far as some California's wanting to leave the US. Seems a bit early but a long period of not having the will of the people represented in Westminster was what led to the move for Independence in Scotland and where the political view is dramatically different and we talk about democracy that is a viable decision - though as I said a bit early but given that you are already wanting them out of the US gives the need for them to set up security for themselves substance.,

 

Well, as a liberal Californian, I see them as traitors to the Union, but I don't personally know anyone who wants to secede.

And for those who want to move to other country just because your candidate didn't win. Just do it. No need to tell anybody because nobody cares.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to call self-determination treason. If Californians were to want to leave, why not let them? It's their choice. Why should the Union come before the values of the people? A Trump victory clearly displays that California is not compatible with the values of the rest of the country. I don't really expect California to secede, but I don't see why they don't have the right to do so.

 

Does New York, New England and the rest of the West Coast join California?

 

If they want

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to leave the union, peacefully even, but that's still betraying the union.

The likelihood of that happening is less than a Texas secession anyway.

I know many liberals are crushed at the result especially Californians...but relax, we could take back everything 4 years later if we get our acts together. And, California leaving the union means liberals everywhere else losing by far the most important state during election. Don't screw them forever just because we lose once.

 

G T F O and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

 

Lovely. I'll help them pack and get them first class tickets.

 

Well then they'd probably join us, right?

 

California seceding from the USA. That could solve a LOT of problems.

1. The USA will be able to direct all incoming 3rd world illegal aliens, Radical Jihadist Muslims, seeking free healthcare, welfare, foodstamps, and housing to NEW CALIFORNIA, where there will certainly be many enlightened Hollywood celebrities willing to open their estates, and pocketbooks full of money, to pay for them, thus sparing the rest of USA working class families from such a burden.

 

Quite frankly, this was brewing since the 1980's when the Republicans were first smeared with the "Southern Strategy' bit, that had the consequence of weakening State/Local Governments. For the two decades and after Reagan's victory, the Democrats had very slowly engineered a propaganda campaign around the Neo-Cons in the Republican Party.

That propaganda campaign, largely true to be fair was that the neo-cons were fat banker pigs who wanted to wage war. After Bush's Iraq disaster, any Democrat could have won the presidency but faith would have it to be Obama.

Then, the Democratic Party metamorphed into something utterly unAmerican: They decided the best way to defend the President, was to accuse all of his detractors of being racist. It was either this, or "Bush"! Or "Not enough time". In any event, the Democrats pushed in a law that no one liked(the ACA) with the consequences well apparent to anyone who knew how health insurance basically worked.

Somehow, they thought it'd be feasible or possible for people to spend money on something most partially use at best. More people take prescription drugs then use the emergency room. After pushing this unlikeable law into law, that's when the great shift would occur.

2010 Mid-Terms: Contrary to what Liberals will have you believe, the Fiscal Conservatives(Tea Party) are not a part of the Nationalist Movement per say.
Though I do share a good deal of sympathy with fiscal policy domestically, and I wouldn't necessarily mind a military withdrawal(indeed, this at least is part of the Nationalist outlook.) However, I have versatility in that we've witnessed the world map change and we've witnessed forces arise against the US.

When threats appear, we have to have the ability to take them out. That's a part of US Foreign policy in the past and it's still our policy in the present. Just, a matter of reacting to threats rather than preemptively creating them through reckless actions abroad(proxy States.)

But anyway, the Tea Party is not fundamentally Nationalist. Our takeover did not happen then. That was the Libertarian movement under Ron Paul. The Libertarian Movement had its seeds back in 2008, as one of the more populist counterparts to Obama's run then. And that movement had succeeded in
taking the 2010 House Seats. But the Dems would still hold the Senate.

2010-2012: The Neo-cons and Liberals would strike a deal, corporatism at its all time high.

The infighting from the Neo-Cons against our Nationalist Revolution is not new, we should have predicted this when they renegaded against their fiscal
conservative counterparts. Had they not done this, Trump doesn't exist and perhaps the GOP has a strong conservative bone. But the Neo-Cons
were threatened by the Tea Party youngsters, who totally wanted to enact the fiscal conservatism they campaigned on.

Meanwhile, the Liberals made one of the stupidest, short sighted but arrogant decisions we've come to expect from them: While Fiscal Conservatism would have limited government spending, the Fiscal Conservatives shared as a principle an anti-war stance, and it could have been possible to save social security and medicaid.

But the Liberal Party had started to change its tune, on war, they were indifferent at best with the president. And at worst, we've seen the Liberals from across the pond agree on an engagement with the Russians. Furthermore, Liberals were opposed to any spending cuts(in spite of the Sequester). This led to a deal with the Neo-Cons, which the Neo-Cons thought would help their image.

But to anyone who watched, it proved the Neo-cons had no spine to fight for conservatism, or for conservatives. It was at this point, far before any debate
that they capitulated. And in this sad day, cronyism would rule and the two parties looked to be on the verge of seizing power.

2014 Mid-Terms: Further Republican Gains. At this point, everyone recognized that Harry Reid was the worst majority leader in the history of the United States. Now officially retired(but Nevada idiotically replaced him with another Liberal.) Harry Reid was one of the biggest obstructors of government. So many Americans weren't necessarily fans of the Republican Party but hated Harry Reid. It didn't help that the Democrats continued a smear campaign. Comparing Republicans to the Michael Brown incident. And then there was the NY intimidation tactics by the NY Democratic Party.

All of this angered many people who still believe in law and order and know smears when we see it. So we voted, not necessarily for the Republicans
but to get Harry Reid removed.

2014-Present: Weirdest period in American History.

It's so funny, but Donald Trump has magically made many Republican setbacks into their first victory against President Obama. At first, we believed that the Republican stagnation was because they were afraid of the Obama Veto. And to an extent this was true. Because of the lack of bipartisanship in Congress, overriding a Veto(a 2/3rds majority) would be impossible except in the Saudi Arabian case.

But since the Democrats control the North East(and arguably since the early 1900's.), it was well thought(until 11/8/2016) that the Democrats held a
virtual barrier against any Republican gains. After all, the last near 30 years prior to this was the greatest slander seen in US Politics, and the GOP was ineffective in countering it. As such, Obama had picked Garland and it seemed as though he had checkmated the Republicans once again.

However, there was something Obama never expected. The Paul Ryan Budget. The Budget was dismissed out of hand by BOTH Far-Left and Far-Right
advocates as being pro-cronyist. For the first time in American History, a slumbering giant awoke against major corporatism. In short, it was the end of the Rockerfeller Republicans.

And then the DNC had the arrogance to shoe-in Hillary Clinton, the tune of a six for six coin flip where everyone saw that the DNC was basically the Iron Curtain, so much that we commented on it . Because Donald was in the middle on some of these issues, a point that the Liberals still see as a weakness but in fact was possibly his greatest strength, Donald appealed to the Blue collar Democrats who were forced out early on by the Administration. Including myself(but I left in 2010. I was ahead of all of this.)

Did the E-Mails have some factor? Some, but not a lot. Exit polls indicate that the people wanted a stronger leader. Someone who unlike Obama wouldn't be passive to threats or being a corporate doll like Hillary. That left the door open for Donald Trump.

And in Trump's victory, now the GOP finally realizes the grand coalition that had been built. We Nationalists were the missing element, to carry home the Conservatives and even Bible-Belters. Is it uncomfortable? To a degree, but our goal now is to make it more comfortable among us. And it's always more comfortable in the driver's seat.

Now, the GOP won't confirm Garland, it has no reason to. He ended up being a tossed pawn that was going to be Obama's checkmate. But liberal arrogance checkmated the President. Now the GOP can remake the country in its image, and all the Dems can do is passively resist at best, and ideally they could join our efforts.

 

On your last point: Not if democrats resist Trump like republicans resisted Obama. Obama was able to do little because of that obstruction. Now that Republicans have further normalized an incomplete SCOTUS, why should democrats accept anybody Trump nominates, or even their consideration? Nothing to lose anymore.

For the rest, thanks for the interesting perspective.

 

Many infantile-minded leftists had earlier claimed they would love to see the states that voted GOP be ejected from the union. Unfortunately for these poor sods that would be the vast majority of America's landmass... they didn't see that coming...

President Trump should promptly suggest to resell south Cali back to Mexico, and then build his wall around it. Those Aztlan-types thought they're entitled to it and that "America stole it", and leftists claim they love multiculturalism/diversity, etc. so now both sides can be happy living under the Mexican government. Like, how much more tolerant and diverse could you get? Meanwhile Mexico would so obviously take it given how rich it is compared to any Mexican state.

Soon enough they'll be begging to come back to America again. Maybe just keep them there to watch them squirm for amusement.

 

You did figure out it is those that want to leave, Right? That was able to filter thru with the corn, Right?. Did you want to say we should force them to stay?

 

Because Democrats cannot effectively get away with it.(And the Republicans are lucky as hell that Trump won.) If Democrats try to do this, the response will be: "You elected us to undergo major changes, but unfortunately the Democratic Party has obstructed our ability to make those changes." And the Democrats will lose more seats(as it is now, they still hold a plurality of Senate seats.) The Democrat position is much weaker than the Republican Position was from 2014-2016. They have to be extremely careful. If they alienate this new leadership, ontop of the past 8 years it will be difficult in the future. Diverse coalition of voters be damned.

It's NP on the prospective. I grew up a Bill Clinton Democrat. The Democrats seriously overplayed their hand on the whole 'racial' issue and made everyone out to be a bad guy. In short, if I'm a radical they radicalized me. And thus, I know how the Democrats operate on a strategic level. It was hubris and arrogance on a scale never before seen, and I think people consciously know that even if the Repubs hadn't shown to be super awesome themselves.

The only way Democrats win, is to act as a minority party. But this is difficult for them. See Sanders's "racism, xenophobism" comment. I predict it will be impossible for the New Left to govern a true coalition outside of its party. That'd take a fundamental shift in its social viewpoint.

 

Well yes but this comes from the 60's when there were all the protests and the to be neo con's begat a terror of 'liberalism' which they believed could destroy the dreams and power of the elite - liberals and democracy - they did not like either. They could not get rid of democracy so developed a set of strategies which they believed could undermine it. One was Nationalism which they thought they would hold together with never ending war with themselves always as the good guy the other as evil.The also believed in the power of religion to control people and set to work to bring people back to religion and to get religious people interested in politics which they had not been before. The other thing they decided was that the masses were too thick to take the 'truth' so they had to be told 'Nobel lies' by the elite to keep them controlled. Liberals were their biggest fear and I have seen that projected by Americans on political forums ever since I came on them. The neo cons were very successful.

I guess the 80's Regan and Banking is probably more about Globalisation and of course our dear Maggie was well into that and shared her mentors views that democracy was not a very good thing. Our politics really good (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up then and she managed to secure the sale of our papers mainly into a monopoly run by Murdoch, hence easing the problem on the elite of people not believing their 'nobel lies'!

The problem being that he is half African?

Maybe they were going on about racism because it was racism. I accept that you believe prescription drugs (which in the US you get without seeing a dr?) and emergency help is best. I think an alternative view was that particularly with the US beling the richest country in the world (at that time) it was shocking that the right to people of good medical care depended on the ability to pay. I am European and we take free medical care at the point of use very seriously. People who can only get emergency care clearly lose out on the benefits of preventative care as well as drugs and treatment which will add to both the quality and length of their lives. From this side of the water it looks like Trump is going to deny those with less the right to as good medial care as those who have the most - that whether you live or die or have a good quality of life depends on your bank balance. As I said that is a philosophical difference between the US and most advanced societies.

What are you talking about here? There is at the moment a strong feeling that Trump ushers in the World Reign of Putin

It’s Putin’s World Now

I was listening to an Oxford Professor speaking about Trump and Putin last night. He thinks yes, it will be better relationships with the US and Russia for a short time. When Trump discovers that Putin in reality is not against ISIS that may well all change and he believes due to Trumps narcissism we could see quite disturbing things then. That is basically what I heard other people saying here too. It may look for a short time, about 6 months they argued, that the US relationship with Russia takes a turn for the good but that will only last until Trump discovers what is really going on.

I agree with you there. The problem obviously is that the US has changed the map of the ME (was that what you were talking about). The US has set in motion something which is now playing it's way out. I think it is probably unlikely that the US can in the foreseeable future move to a position where it is not affected. I think I have discussed Trump and war with you before. I do not believe a man intent on peace would be going about building up their military as Trump intends. Once he understands that Putin does not share his view that all will be solved when ISIS is destroyed he may start using some of that so in the long term I think we will be lucky if in foreign affairs Trump acts in a more safe way that hawish lady Clinton would have.

I don't understand a lot of this no doubt due to not being fro the US nor spending time studying this. However on how someone like Trump managed to come through there sees to be two elements to this. One the celebratory society we live in which Trump is most certainly a part of due to the Apprentice. Was hearing someone last night saying without that nae chance Trump would even have been noticed and that sounds right. The other a bit more concerning was apparently due to a deliberate attempt by the Democrats to promote him!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/796245632541454336

Well what you call liberals from across the pond would appear to be the Blairites in Labour and the Tories. Now it was after 9/11 that these people through in their lot with the US and became war mongers but like in the US there is no longer much support for this. From the Iraq war there was not support for the US's ME policy among civilians in the UK. That war was fought without the agreement of the British people and the Libya war was fought on the British public believing 'Nobel Lies'. I think the public in the UK had turned off war long before the public in the US, possibly because out elite only joined the never ending war line up after 9/11.

So are you saying that sometime after 9/11 in the States both the Republicans and the Democrats became much the same and took to serving the elites? If so that is what happened to the Labour and Conservative Party in the UK (currently resulting in war in the Labour Party as people try to get it back to serve the people)

Fair enough I am totally ignorant on this issue.

and this unfortunately is one of the big concerns about what has been going on re support for Trump particularly with his hate speech - and yes it is hate speech to say people are rapists because of their race.

Putting it in a simpler way what seems to be going on at the moment in the US is a variety of things. Never ending recession due to Globalisation which has as one of it's possibilities that the US will never again have the standard of living it once thought needed only hard work .

That this has happened at a time when the demographics are changing so that in a short while white people will no longer be the majority with the advantages that brings. (This in itself has seen a massive increase in alcoholism, drub abuse and suicide among white working class Americans.)

The US's wars (and support of Israel) have created a situation where there is minor terrorism in the US. This is magnified beyond all reason causing terror in some sections of society.

Research illustrated that these concerns as well as having an authoritarian personality were what was prevalent in Trump supporters and that they were looking for someone who they believed was strong, who they believed would protect them, doing away with the norms of society if necessary - even to the point of being prepared for opponents to be killed. There is generally a strong overlap between support for Trump or his equivalent (Le Penn, Farage etc) and love of Putin who embodies these qualities. I am hence suggesting that regardless of the political history what binds Trump supporters to him is more psychology. Of course we know that Trump until he won was not well liked by Republicans though I read that he was just a bit more extreme with where they were at anyway. We know that plenty of Democrats voted for Trump.....and we know that the Democrat elite got rid of Sanders and put in his place Hilary 'because it was her turn' and although she did still get the 'popular vote' that was more to do with people being prepared to vote for anyone to try and keep Trump out. Clinton being seen as one of the two least popular candidates for President ever - Trump being the other.

In Nationalists what are you meaning. Like I said Nationalism was an aim of the Neo Con's. How can Nationalism be in effect when the other it is against is its own people?

If it were White Nationalism I definitely see what you are saying. Is that what you are meaning.

 

At least Texas has it's own power grid, where will Calistanian's get their power from?

ETA: And I expect to see open borders.

 

California? Are you still here?
Why?

 

No no no, you've got it all wrong mate. You see, it's not okay when Texas does it, as they're a bunch of racist white people. California is full of completely non-privledged celebrities. The bourgeoisie absolutely are not in California. It's only good, brown proletarians.

Really though, this is ideal. The United States is far too large. The left can have CA, OR, WA and HI on the west coast, and NY, MA, PA, NJ, MA, DC and VT on the east coast. The right can have the middle. We'll talk about IL, maybe give it to Canada.

Government must be on a local, decentralized level or democracy quickly becomes tyranny and infighting. America was born on July 2, 1776, and died on June 21, 1788. Look up the dates if you have to.

 

But it would give the US a great start on getting out the illegals. It might drop the total of illegals by half if they left. Where do we vote to allow this to happen?

 

Mexico has been in the process of reclaiming CA over the years and has been succeeding!

 

No, I am not the person with no intelligence talking here. It was you who suggested they leave the US.

There is nothing a country fears as much as civil war. That was more in my mind. If you believe that you can hold the US together by increased hatred of the other, suggesting they leave and when being shown that some are already sufficiently nervous that they are making inquiries, responding to that with insults and asking if I want you to force them to stay, the US has reached a lower and more dangerous point than I knew.

 

Incorrect. The Neo-cons LOATHE Nationalism. They literally loathe it. You cannot be pro-corporate and pro-Nationalist at the same time. That's why the merger, for now will eventually subside to one side eventually leading over the GOP. And I believe it's us Nationalists. The only way a corporate can be a part of the Nation, is subverting himself to the Nationalist cause. So literally, the only place for them to go is Nationalism. But it was not a calling card in their past, or present. It was something that Donald had awoken, through many independent wishes in this country.

Also, that's not what happened in the 60's. In the 60's, Middle Class America was far more stronger than it is right now. Conservative Americans(IE: You could say the Bible Conservatives were still very prominent) had their religious beliefs, the nuclear family threshold, etc. By and large, they wanted to conserve these values and not rock the bed. That's 60's Conservatism(and it tried to hang, even as corporates hijacked the party. Obviously the merger of pro-family and pro-corporate could not take hold.)

In the 60's, you had the Vietnam War(ironically started by the Democrats.) and the Vietnam Protesters would lead the way towards the New Left. Even as then-President Nixon negotiated with the Chinese! You could say, on the Vietnam front the two parties switched modern views. But it wasn't just the Vietnam factor. You also had the Power Movement that said: Free sex, screw the families, etc. And one of the biggest mistakes of the Conservative Movement is that they let all of this pass by.

Whereas the New Left engaged in violence and intimidation, most blue collar voters contended themselves to stay at home and accept the forced changes by diktat. Today, as a result of the New Left urinating all over the country from 1965-2016, there's more than half of single mothers in the country. And conversely, the nuclear family unit is dead. Marriage, as an institution no longer exists. The Donald Trump victory is a very late reaction to
policies and aggression against "those who aren't like us" for the past few decades. Conservatism was brandished and too weak-willed. And we Nationalists had not yet discovered a winning formula.

From 1954-1992, Democrats had ruled over the House and for a large period of that time, the Senate as well. This is the first time perhaps in History that the Republicans own the trifecta. It's amazing what Donald Trump has accomplished. The Repubs never had this shot. I hope they use it effectively.

Fox is but one News Station. And MSNBC is much more notorious, as is CNN. This election has shown the true manipulation. HuffingtonPost for its entire year had that stupid little disclaimer on the bottom insulting our president, which they finally had to take off. CNN's ratings are now utterly in the trash. And the same can be true for pretty much all of them.

They didn't endorse Donald, and now they find themselves outside of Real America. Forced to console themselves with the Liberal antagonists in the union. Now, just as in 2004 the Democratic Party will retreat and think of options. Will it go even further to the Left? If so, the Republicans can glee at such an opportunity. Especially if they can strengthen the economy. There's the chance, however slim that the Democratic Party starts to appeal to the voters that it lost(yes, LOST.) See Here.


However, the Democratic Party faces a crisis within itself. It cannot appeal to the blue collar voters they insulted and denigrated(and they might not ever get us back. I know I won't. I know the Dems want to use people like me as exploitation for votes.) without overturning the Far Left policies.

But where does that leave Sanders/Warren? Can they make such an approach? Never. Again, it'd destroy their brand. Also, they had aligned with Hillary Clinton. That's something Trump will use in his re-election campaign. The Dems are caught between the monster they created, and the party they used to be.

Let's discuss the worst case: Trump fails as a president. But even then, I still believe in Nationalism as a fundamental concept. I just didn't want Donald to lead it. Now he will, for better or worse. But even if Trump fails, I still remember the insults to my own person, and every law-abiding White American also remembers these insults. Whereas you'll still get the Liberal Whites and I don't know why they tolerate those insults. Does it feel good to denigrate themselves?

Anyway, we're not going Left again. Our character was slanted, and we committed not a single crime. As far as we can see, our only crime was not being able to stop slavery when it happened. But that's not the fault of people who weren't born here.

No, that he was a conceded snob that he confessed in an TheAtlantic Article, he didn't care about the state of affairs inside his OWN country that he was supposed to govern. That is another reason they lost the election. They simply do not care for Americans who are not like them. But your conception of thinking is again a LARGE part of the problem for Democrats.

My own grandmother whose a legal resident of this country doesn't like it. Let me repeat: Unless Democrats change this, they will not be winning any elections. You can't alienate a significant portion of US Citizens and expect to win. Whites in the Northwest and even in the Mid-Atlantic now know they matter. That they can make a difference to this social tyranny. That breaks up the wall of oppression for 30 years.


Democrats can only restore the wall, by restoring the sense of being a part of an American System. But again, that's going to be a painful transformation.
The Dems also had the problem of not allowing younger Democrats. There was a time where I was going to try and run as a Democrat, but the democratic representative in that city at the time did not give me the help I wanted.

I don't see them winning in 2020, maybe in 2024 if all breaks well for them.

You take free medical care, in large part because of the US Military aid to Europe. Now, I don't want to necessarily erode the European bloc of defense
if I had a choice. I want to get you Europeans and Russians to a table to avoid a war. That was the point of NATO, and unfortunately it eroded from
its original purpose. But if push comes to shove, it literally is in our interests to align with Russia that doesn't need those military defenses
and can bolster its own economy without the weight of the US against it.

So if Europe wants the US, it has to play nice in Eurasia now and come to political agreements for both sides. If Europe finds itself too risky then the
old saying is "blood only runs so thick." We barely committed to being aggressive against terrorism, there literally isn't support for the European Front as
Hillary now knows to her political peril lol.

And if that ends up escalating in tensions with Russians, that's just too bad for you guys. The only reason we had aligned with Europe was in similar
political and philosophical outlooks. But given that Europe wants to do this dance AGAIN. You no longer share our political and philosophical outlooks.

It's no longer possible to create an INTL world of peace, with European Antagonism. Equally, it's harder to sustain a nuclear umbrella with such antagonism. Europe has some existential decisions to make. We've made ours for reattaining our Western Hemisphere. If Europe makes the right
choices, the world will be in a better place. If Europe makes the wrong ones, the US will reassess the situation accordingly.

Now, on health care in particular. No, we don't get drugs without seeing a doctor. We still have to go to a doctor to get a prescription. What I was saying,
is that Americans overwhelmingly take prescription drugs, far more so than medical treatment.(Most would only get medical treatment when they're actually sick.) This is why Obama wanted preventive care.

All good and well in theory, but in actuality 'preventive care' often meant things that certain individuals didn't need(tampons, very famously.) And it's an underrated part of increasing health costs. This reply of mine would be larger if I went in detail on what I'd do to fix this awful mess. But very basically, I'd like to create a systematic medical account online, so that pharmacies would have real-time access to what patients need and be able to
get that done accordingly.

No more prescriptions, no more needless doctor visits. That would also make it easier, and faster to get access to doctors timely(another issue.)
I have many more details, but that's just the basics. If you want to know more, we can discuss health care but for now, I want to keep the discussion to the political alignments.

Here, I fundamentally disagree. And this is about how the US(American Citizens, not Washington) sees the world, and not how Europe sees the world.
I'll be very frank: We don't care about Syria, and the idea of committing military forces to Syria is simply impossible. Even more impossible is accepting refugees from there. No, Syrians must reclaim and rebuild Syria ideally through the political process. There's no tenable solution in temporary refugee
States, or through the conflict itself.

There's only a political solution to Syria, and a withdrawal from US forces there. All forces must withdraw their arms, and go back to the UN Tables.
And when possible, all refugees should have a right to return. A Syrian Diaspora is not to the interest of the Syrian People. I can see that Assad is no longer qualified to lead the Syrian People but I also see that a military overthrow(as in Libya) will also fail. There must be a political settlement in that Russia sees that we're not involved or trying to interfere in the Syrian Government, that the Syrians feel the new leader will respect the new Syrian Government and separately we must deal with the Kurdish-Turkey issues.

This is a mess Obama started. And while it doesn't have the financial constraints of Iraq, it has the political constraints of ten Iraqs.

And the solution to Ukraine is equally as simple. Partition the two States. East/West Ukraine. The part of Ukraine that's pro-Russian, goes with the Russians and the Eastern Ukrainians can join the EU. That should make everyone happy. Whoever said that the Russian Sphere of influence
should be small? Even if Russia were curtailed to its geographical borders, it's still one of the largest countries. If China expands in size, if England did and the US, so too can Russia.

My only caveat and Putin himself said the same: Is neutrality with Eastern Europe, and the decisions to be made are their own. Basically, we renounce
the Pentagon policy of encirclement with regards to Russia. The new Cold War, does not serve our supremacy interests.

But by and large, if Russia did become militarily aggressive and if it did invade, then while we don't want this war, we also don't want to see the innocent
slaughter of civilians, which war inevitably brings. The hope is that the US-Russo alliance, will bring with it much needed stability in these other areas.
It would also restore the nuclear umbrella I spoke about.

The issue is that our military is at its smallest point since WW2. And while yes, that military is still powerful theoretically, it simply is not prepared for combat. There's also the issue(as with all US programs) with the cost relating to overhead, administrative work, etc. The goal is to reduce these and inefficient weapons(such as heavy stealthbombers.) In exchange for their more efficient counterparts. And speaking for myself particularly, if elected I'd
like to have a fixed budget for the military.

If a budget is truly fixed, it doesn't rise. It can be appropriated as the situation requires, however a constant means that the military will have to choose
where to put its funds. I'd like to modernize all parts of our military, my vision of a military is lean, sleek and adaptable. Fast, hard and strong. We should
have a military force so robust that our conventional forces are just as lethal as our nuclear ones. And thus, not ever needing our nuclear arsenal.

Peace through strength means not only having the strength, but the reservation to only use it when necessary. If we withdraw the bases, and concentrate
our forces at points where they're most needed: Here at home, we'll be able to respond in real time to threats. We saw how meaningless our isolated military is, with regards to Benghazi. It's an outdated model, for an outdated world.

The important factor is that with or without Putin's cooperation in peace, the US will reattain its Western hegemony. We will concentrate on the Asian
Front as well. China's militaristic rise must be countered, as well as formenting a relationship there. We'd like to see a Chinese-Japanese alliance. But
if all else fails, I'd like to see Japan be the leader of a new, peaceful Asia. The world map I envision is with strong actors across the globe in order
to maintain their own hemispheres and thus to reduce radical extremism all over the globe. The US cannot do it alone, and it cannot do it as a dependent. It must instead collaborate ethical relationships with all actors.

Democrats, promote Donald Trump? Hardly. At real issue, is that the Democrats couldn't promote anything that they didn't already promote. They promoted free college, but not on how to pay for it.(Mostly, they said their invisible taxes on the wealthy.) As far as border security, they didn't really promote anything positive there either. Except the well-known support for amnesty and the idea that we simply cannot deport those poor families that
broke US Law.

But to quote Donald Trump: A Nation without laws, is not a Nation. A nation without borders, is not a nation. We vowed to be a Nation of Laws. Since the Democrats basically disavowed any responsibility whatsoever to this union, no one wanted to vote for them. Can you imagine if Donald
had been just a tiny bit less crass and if the media were a little less slanted? We're talking landslide stuff here.

So, at a time where the Democrats were trying to make their appeal they honestly believed that "more of the same' was what the people wanted.
No, it isn't. So even though a good portion of voters were worried, fearful even of these two candidates. Secretly, we all hoped it was the outcome. Our "votes' were not on the ballot but in the hearts and minds of Donald Trump.

Does the Tory party support the kind of social programs, the Democrats do? The Neo-cons might be closer to the Tories than the Democrats. Now the
Neo-cons have two choices, as I said earlier: They can join the Nationalist Revolution, or they can float into oblivion. It's entirely their choice and
what they now see is this: Regardless of what choice they make, they're not needed. The bottle to changing the GOP had been there for years and
now we finally corked the bottle.

But no, the Democrats are not Tory-lite on Social issues. What we see is that the Democrats(particularly Obama's hawkish cabinet.) were very much neo-cons. All the way to Samantha Powers, who Obama had a contentious relationship with. So perhaps the Democrats can be said to be militarily neo-cons. As seen when they all aligned with the Democrats.

Maybe that's their future. Maybe the neo-cons just joined the Democrats, and the rural voters have found a home within a more inclusive, ironically truly
diverse Republican Party. The new alignment confuses me a great deal. I have to think over what I want to do.

Yes, at least militarily. Ideally, we might even see Wall Street type reforms out of the New Republican Party. Such reforms, if enacted will crush the big banker theory and that's probably the last thing the Democrats can truly run on. Trump being a successful, populist president will ultimately change the course of US History.

Be thankful that you're ignorant,very few people would want to experience Harry Reid. It's amazing that someone who openly admitted to lying on the
US Senate floor somehow has more 'respect' than our new President-Elect. Such is who they've become.

A: He didn't say All Mexicans were rapists. What he was alluding to, were criminal aliens crossing over the borders(such as the Kate incident in San Fransisco). And fundamentally go either under-reported or not at all. A Republican Senator detailed at least 300,000 crimes committed yearly around the border areas. Not to say that these people will be persecuted under the law. But we will no longer handcuff our patrols..

Nor will we allow re-entry for those we've deported, unless they went through Patrol Customs and did it the right way. And yes, I am a Le Pen/Farage supporter. Both of them have spoken strongly for the French Republic and the Commonwealth of England respectively. My views align so very much with Le Pen's on these social issues, it's almost scary.

I wish we had a Secular Law, just like France's. And she's right about enforcing it. A nation can only be secular, if it enforces its secularity. We cannot call ourselves a secular society, if there are those who want to topple its very traditions. We cannot call ourselves a nation of laws if there are those who break the law and we're afraid of enforcing the law for fear that we highlight 'stereotypes' or anger the would-be terrorists in the country.

No, if they're angered and attack us, they will attack us regardless if you gagged all of us Nationalists tomorrow. Before Donald Trump, there was the underwear bomber. Before Donald Trump, San Bernardo happened. And regardless of Donald Trump, the terrorist attacks in NY happened. Both this year's and Town Square's.

Madam Le Pen is not responsible for Nice. Belgium nationalists in Belgium are not responsible for that terror attack.

Around the world, we're seeing two political sides. Those who believe in our respective countries honor, traditions and rules of law and those who will sacrifice that for temporary peace. It brings to mind, Dr. Ben Franklin's quote.

"He who would trade a little bit of freedom for security, will have neither freedom nor security." The West and the US will not abandon its responsibilities to itself first, and then its allies. Now, how you all respond to that, is your own business. Not ours.

But to complete the revolution: Go Madam Le Pen, become France's President!