I Don't Think I Can Defend a Trump Presidency

These nationalists movements are absolutely vital to the health of our societies. The ridiculous demographic engineering that has been pursued by Democrats for political gain, and allowed by Republicans to depress wages, needs to be shut down. We need to put the brakes on globalism and take a breather, with an emphasis on our own people.

The Republicans, with or without Trump, are not going to pursue a sound economic policy. They are going to do what they always do and engage in the same cronyism the dems do. If you think they are going to support libertarianism, you are crazy. They only support deregulating their pet industries, not other harmful regulations, nor are they going to address our pathetic excuse for infrastructure and better transportation systems.

The next recession is not going to be mild. By many accounts, it is expected to be a disaster. Interest rates probably won't have much room to budge, our healthcare system is going to be even more expensive, and our people are going to be in more debt.

That is encouraging.

I would vote for Jim Webb right now if he were an option, but the dems are far too gone to support someone as balanced as Jim Webb.

I have not jumped to conclusions about Trump. I've supported him for a while, but the fact that he is impulsive seems to be pretty damn obvious.

There is no doubt that what he says about immigration, Obamacare, and a host of other things, are correct, but that doesn't mean he is the man for the job.

- - - Updated - - -

These nationalists movements are absolutely vital to the health of our societies. The ridiculous demographic engineering that has been pursued by Democrats for political gain, and allowed by Republicans to depress wages, needs to be shut down. We need to put the brakes on globalism and take a breather, with an emphasis on our own people.

The Republicans, with or without Trump, are not going to pursue a sound economic policy. They are going to do what they always do and engage in the same cronyism the dems do. If you think they are going to support libertarianism, you are crazy. They only support deregulating their pet industries, not other harmful regulations, nor are they going to address our pathetic excuse for infrastructure and better transportation systems.

The next recession is not going to be mild. By many accounts, it is expected to be a disaster. Interest rates probably won't have much room to budge, our healthcare system is going to be even more expensive, and our people are going to be in more debt.

That is encouraging.

I would vote for Jim Webb right now if he were an option, but the dems are far too gone to support someone as balanced as Jim Webb.

I have not jumped to conclusions about Trump. I've supported him for a while, but the fact that he is impulsive seems to be pretty damn obvious.

There is no doubt that what he says about immigration, Obamacare, and a host of other things, are correct, but that doesn't mean he is the man for the job.

 

The only thing "delusional" about this election season is the notion that Trump ever had a chance to win.

He was always toast.

 

Why are you being redundant?

 

The Republicans allowed this to happen in the first place. It was their total lack of both foresight and concern for the country that allowed the dems to do this.

As for the Supreme Court, we have to rely on the senate to keep this from going off the rails.

The Republicans as they currently exist have been on the path to oblivion for a while now. A new Republican party can win elections in the future.

Ultimately, the battle was lost when they gained control of the media and the education system. It will take a miracle or a catastrophe to truly reverse these trends.

- - - Updated - - -

The Republicans allowed this to happen in the first place. It was their total lack of both foresight and concern for the country that allowed the dems to do this.

As for the Supreme Court, we have to rely on the senate to keep this from going off the rails.

The Republicans as they currently exist have been on the path to oblivion for a while now. A new Republican party can win elections in the future.

Ultimately, the battle was lost when they gained control of the media and the education system. It will take a miracle or a catastrophe to truly reverse these trends.

 

Perhaps you did not fully read my post. Hillary will give amnesty to illegals which will be millions of new democrat voters. Do you understand the implication of this?

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh.....I know you need to reassure yourself by pretending but do not expect anyone else to join in. I said it would be close from the start and it is.

 

My problem is that what used to be up is now down and what used to be down is now up. The Democrats (primarily) created the middle class but have sold the middle class out to the globalists and investor classes. The globalists and investor class who used to be represented by the Republicans (primarily) have been torpedoed by Trumplicans who, in my opinion, are generally NOT elite money people and should have torpedoed the Democratic Party instead. Anyway, throw in the fact that Trump is a miscreant who'd rather see the country burn than seek professional help for his sociopathologies, and what you have is a horribly befukled country whose only saving grace is that the enemy cannot readily be identified.

Point is, change is desperately needed even though the country is a long way from agreeing on those changes. Trump, however, is absolutely the WRONG change agent. I like some of his ideas. The man is disgusting.

 

Anyone who thinks Trump is "impulsive and petty" should check this out:

[video=youtube;JMknKXfbyt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMknKXfbyt8[/video]

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who thinks Trump is "impulsive and petty" should check this out:

[video=youtube;JMknKXfbyt8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMknKXfbyt8[/video]

 

Dude, her response was appropriate. That is your example of her being petty and impulsive?

 

Not sure where you get the hypocrite thing from as far as my post went. I essentially just agreed with what your OP said. I have always thought Trump was a horrible candidate, but I've never loved Clinton either. I just don't rabidly hate her like some people do. I'm sure they feel they have good reason to hate her and thats fine for them, but trying to turn me into some partisan hack who worships Hillary is way worse than anything I've ever written.

Now... this is what I was trying to write you back after your first reply to me (when the server went down)

Looking at the primary I don't see much disagreement on policy from the republican candidates. What I do see is occasional unwillingness to agree with inflammatory and extreme versions of those policies. Usually put out in questions from news reporters during interviews and conferences.

The extreme versions of a candidates policy stance are often put out by the media in an attempt to bait candidates into going out on ideological limbs where they hurt their broad public image. Trump ran out on those limbs like gravity was a myth, where experienced politicians wouldn't. It doesn't mean that their policy stance was actually any different, it just means they were afraid of being framed into a box by the media.

Trump was not afraid, and because politics has become what it is, it made him explosively popular on the right. By the time the other republican candidates realized what was going on it was way too late.

I think part of his success is an innate ability to read his audience and figure out what they want. I think the other part is political naivete which people have (mis)read as honesty and courage.

As far as him having true ideals I see no convincing evidence. As far as him being obsessed with his own fame and image it seems obvious. He is a candidate with no 'core' anything, except maybe a undeniable compulsion to self promote.

 

Fortunately....You wont need to.

 

@Guyzilla started a thread on whether character mattered as a valid criteria for choosing a president. Some posters responded with sometimes policy trumps character and this is something I sometimes agree with.

In addition to policy over character at times, my point of view is that the establishment needs to feel real threats to power. They really need to feel some heat for giving Americans the finger whenever they are supposed to govern a certain way and they don't. They need to realize that when Americans said 'no' the Wall St bailout, they meant it. When they say do something about Americans having to compete with foreigners for scraps, Americans weren't messin around. They need to look at Trump, see all of his flaws, and realize that many Americans are willing to elect someone that will rock their world if they don't start working favorably for the American public. They've already been warned with Occupy Wall St, the Tea Party Movement, and other movements--all of which tried going by the book, and the political response was to suppress and dismiss those warnings.

I'm also of the belief that a wholesome person simply won't cut it this go round. The media has and will crucify anyone not going along to get along. They would crucify a saint if they ran against the establishment. All dissenting groups in this country have been propagandized into cartoonish mischaracterizations and vilified. It takes a certain type of personality to withstand the onslaught the media is dealing out and to keep going.

Also, sometimes it takes the black hat to do the job. Some info-security firms will hire hackers to seek out vulnerabilities in their systems; the police will work with unsavory informants to get the bust; some will hire violent ex-felons for bounce/security work. The thing is having someone well versed on how it works and with a willingness to fix it should be considered.

Lastly, Trump's candidacy will not hurt a nationalist movement. If a nationalist movement was as serious as Trump is, they'd be unstoppable anyway. Anyway great opening post, just thought I'd share my 2cents.

 

It is an indictment of the corporate propaganda MSM outlets. Your message is reciting them. You only know what they tell you. The independent press and media was bought out by the global super rich and mega corporations years ago. They are businesses and their motives, like all corporations, singularly is profits. Hillary Clinton's wars and neocon efforts are highly profitable and she has assured them over and over that she will do whatever those corporations want.

As for Trump's demeanor, it is absurd to criticize it given the many, many, many people who spoken of Hillary Clinton's personality and demeanor - plus in every possibly way it is now known that people like you and I are just dirt under her feet.

 

Exactly, as True Nationalists who spearheaded the intellectual part of the movement, this is a very sad day. Not that Trump took the majority of my positions. But a reform on Immigration and Trade were concerns that a growing number of Americans understood.(Along with the health issue). It was our movement that highlighted these things, and our movement can still very well affect change in these areas.

I didn't ever want to accept the Globalist Hillary, but I also knew what Donald Trump meant to our movement. That's why I stood away as long as I did, instead preferring modest improvements overtime. And as far as I was concerned: We got 35% of the American Populace. That's a HUGE start from where we were. Organizing a modern party and cleaning up the message, are the next steps forward.

Donald Trump killed the GOP, but it also flushed us out as well. Which is a good thing, we don't want or need to be GOP-Lite. The interesting thing will be 2020. Will Hillary succeed or flop? If she succeeds, that'll be good for the country but not so good for an alternative movement. If she flops however, then our movement provided we make these adjustments will be in great shape in 2020.

The number one thing we must do is denounce Trump, clean our hands of Trump. Trump jumped on OUR bandwagon, not the other way around.

 

I'm reminded of the song "You picked a fine time to leave me Lucille".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SDVkdcO8ts

This is the first time in 36 years we've had a candidate that represents the common man, as even you somewhat admit to. It would seem to me, that now is the time to stand by those principles, and not fall for the manufactured character assassinations that the opposing political party and media hacks would have you believe.

As I see it, there have been many times in the past when it seemed a waste of time to even cast a vote, but this election, in my opinion, is not one of those times.

 

Simply mouthing off 'common problems' does not make him a common man. It makes him someone who states the freaking obvious. Which, yes, is new to US Politics. But the key issue is: What are you going to do about it. Moaning about things doesn't make it go away or any better. So on top of being stale with very few ideas, his clear lack of political temperament couldn't be any clearer even to those who wish for National Reforms.

We're just going to have to try again. The only point of disagreement I have with Ricky, is our Nationalist existence within the GOP. The Tea Party already tried this. The mainstay GOP will not help the Nationalist insurgence, instead they will crucify us for not upholding the political game between typical conservatives and Liberals. And the Liberals showed their true colors in aligning with the Neo-cons instead of the TP. And Fiscal Conservatism has MORE in common with Liberalism than the Neo-cons!

If Liberals had worked with the TP(instead of calling it racist), if Conservatives worked with the TP. Donald Trump doesn't exist. Instead of reforming government, they kicked out all outsiders.

If we Nationalists follow the Tea Party, we'll merely share their fate. I suggest all Nationalists share their emails, phone numbers, etc(with those they trust of course) and bind together. We make up 35% of the American Electorate. This is great news. Once we get to 50+1, we'll have a mandate to change the country.

That means we only need to split off 15% combined from Dems/Republicans. A very easy thing to do, considering that the Nationalist Movement is large part because the Blue-Dog Democrats had been killed. Four more years of this, may be all that's needed for the Dems to follow Republicans.

All we have to do is establish that nest, reject Donald Trump and we'll be in a very unique position: The position to tell these GLOBALISTS what to do. We'll put the boot on their ass for once.

 

If you're looking at the long run then you should be voting Trump.

The loss of SCOTUS to the progressive agenda alone is enough reason.

 

Trump is a reaction to the political royalty and other career politicians that we've been seeing so often, so yeah, he's not what I would call presidential material. He's a businessman, and that scares the daylights out of the political elite who think that only they are worthy of political office.

He's not perfect by any means, but it really is a binary choice. You can go with corrupt political royalty who will sell the country to the highest bidder, or you can go with the guy who is a complete question mark. Or you can stay home and choke the chicken which means you aren't part of the process.

 

So you think her response was appropriate? Maybe for a 2 year old.

 

Sorry no a nationalist movement that claims it must dominate everyone within arms length such as the current Islamic nationalist movement, is bad for everyone including Muslims. The thing with nationalist movements is that they vary by country and culture.

 

I agree. Her response WAS appropriate...and not over the top. It obviously was a bit in-your-face...but it was a response that told things like they are. She is not going to give someone else's opinion...she was more than willing to give her own.

If this is an example of Hillary Clinton being nastier than Donald Trump...

...it failed BIG TIME/

 

Hey everyone, I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I celebrated a friend's b-day recently and have also had to work a bunch, so I just haven't had time to respond to all of the great responses I received.

Anyway, I responded as much as I could:

I wasn't actually trying to target you, but I accidentally included you in my response--apologies.

Your analysis of the situation seems pretty damn accurate to me. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that the other Republicans are in agreement with Trump on most issues. He is simply too liberal, at least in relative terms, to appeal to some of the more staunch conservatives. He certainly isn't going to get much support from the libertarian wing.

It's a good post, and I appreciate the feedback.

I actually think character can be, and often is, more important than policy, which is part of my reasoning. A person's character tells you more about how they think and the decisions they are likely to make than their stated policy positions. In fact, Hillary's major flaw is her poor character, just like Trump, with some obvious differences in how this is expressed.

Ron Paul could have made a good nuclear option, though I'm not at all libertarian (ideally, he'd have cleaned things up and they would have fought him on the more insane positions). I would like to see a candidate who I know will fight corruption. With Trump, I think he cares about corruption to the extent that it helps strengthen his candidacy, but I doubt he is concerned with it out of principle.

A nationalist movement will be very hard to get off the ground, due to our racial and cultural makeup, but it isn't impossible. If you could build a multiracial base with a mandate to fight corruption, build infrastructure, and increase wages, you might get somewhere.

I don't even watch TV, not to mention the fact that I'm more than aware of how the media is biased against right-wingers, so I am not being brainwashed in the slightest.

Also, I am not endorsing Hillary, so me not wanting to vote for Trump is not support for Hillary.

I think a calamity is inevitable, given how bad the next recessions is likely to be. I also think that technology is going to start having major effects in ways previously unforeseen. The conservatives don't think this will happen, but I'm skeptical.

Because of this, I think we'll get our shot, but the racial issues have to be defeated.

Again, I know the media is twisting this, but it doesn't mean everything they are saying is incorrect.

This runoff election system is going to make a third party damn near impossible. Perhaps you are right, but the TP never really represented the best interests of the average person anyway, unlike our brand of nationalism. Moderate liberals can get behind it, and the conservatives wouldn't have a choice if we took over their party.

This does worry me. I'm dreading a new 2A ruling...

Not being part of the process removes my culpability in the negative things that are likely to continue and will save me an evening to boot.

I just don't see anything weird about it. A guy basically dismissed her as worthless, the Secretary of State, in public. The man should have been thrown out on his ass for behaving that way toward a high-ranking foreign official.

I can't stand Hillary, but foreigners, or even Americans, should not behave that way toward officials who serve in that capacity.

No no no, we don't want more war; we want less!

The only countries we need to worry about are Russia, China, and anyone trying to acquire nukes. The rest can figure out their own destinies.

She responded pretty well, considering how badly the man insulted her.

 

Hope you're okay with me chopping you post. I don't do it to silence or misrepresent, I just do it to make clear what I'm responding to, but I know its a problem with some people.

Trumps economic policy is different, and I didn't think about that in my post. You just don't hear much about that part of his platform anywhere. What I have heard made it sound pretty sketchy. But it isn't a lot like I said.

Don't worry about giving me too much detail (I prefer links if its complicated), but what in his economic policy do you think is better?

 

No problem at all.

Well, he has been pretty consistent, going back thirty years, on not supporting free trade, which I agree with. I'm not against trade by any means, but we need to take the Asian approach to trade and make deals that we can be reasonably certain will benefit the majority of Americans.

His resistance to illegal immigration helps low wage workers, and if he is willing to reduce the amount of legal immigration, that will have a much greater effect on wages overall, not to mention the cultural benefits of letting things gel a little more. After all, nation building and the development of a common identity can take a long time, and steady immigration does not help this process one bit.

Finally, he has been rather adamant about major infrastructure projects, nationwide, and I really sympathize with this idea. He regularly cites the superior rail networks of other countries, and this is something I've always wanted us to pursue. After living in China, I cannot begin to describe how incredible a viable high-speed rail system can be. I believe Hillary is also favorable to this idea, but the fact that Trump does is a point in his favor.

 

Its too bad really. A candidate who was a bit more stable could make this work for them.

Political campaigns always warp perceptions about the candidates. I've never supported Trump, mostly because I grew up seeing his public image, which to me is not consistent with presidency.

I think frustration has made people look past that, but he isn't really so different from the public image he's created either.
(I'd never vote for Howard Stern or Bill Maher for the same reason)

 

I don't FEEL like voting for Trump, sue me.