US Politics Thread

[britbox]

Interesting interview with Trump back in 98... I kind of like these interviews because they weren't politically motivated at the time... so perhaps a bit more honest.



His comments on women might be a revelation to some posters on the board.

 

[calitennis127]

By "historic mainstream America," it's clear you're dog-whistling to the same tune as Trump and his ilk. That old vision of America is white and exclusionary. The Democratic Party is neither anti-white, nor anti-American...it simply reflects a different vision for America than yours. People in CA, NY, Chicago, and others who vote Democrat, and there were many in this election, are Americans, as well. You don't get to claim "pro-American" for Republicans. I could easily make the argument that this particular alt-Right branch of the Republican party is far less representative of what America stands for.

By "historic mainstream America," I am referring to the people (yes, they were overwhelmingly white and of European origin) who made America the leading country in the world over a period of two centuries, not recent imports who are brought in to the country to make you feel wholesome. You can dance around this all you want and deny it, but America was the leading power in the world before the 1965 Immigration Act, and at that point it was roughly 90% white and 10% black with small numbers of other groups dispersed throughout the country. If you take emotion and sentimentalism out of the picture and rationally assess America's history, that is the cold reality.

The Democratic Party is absolutely and unquestionably "anti-white." It encourages and purveys anti-white stereotypes incessantly; whites have oppressed blacks, killed innocent Native Americans, and conspired in a wily strategy to create a subtle system known as "institutional racism" and "white privilege." As Susan Sontag put it, "the white race is the cancer of human history." The only way whites are acceptable is if they, like you, agree with the historically baseless and fact-free version of history served up by the leftist education system. The left is so anti-white that it will not even acknowledge the legitimacy of immigration law. The higher good for the left is that America becomes more racially diverse, so if that means allowing 30 million people to break U.S. law and have U.S. citizens suffer, so be it. The double standards when it comes to race are hilarious in this country: if I say that, generally speaking, white people are terrible at basketball and unathletic, no one really cares. But if someone points out that blacks have higher crime rates than any other group, then they are looked at as a reincarnation of a mass murderer.

The Democratic Party also is absolutely anti-American - if you actually understand what America is. If you define America, as Obama's ignorant ass does, as something having to do with "our values" that leftists invent out of thin air every 5 years, then yes, the Democratic Party is pro-American. But Obama clearly knows nothing about the framing of the U.S. Constitution and has a very superficial understanding of American history, which is also the case with the media and most college graduates. As a result, he gets away with his inanities.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of vastly different groups, such as Muslims and Jews, who cannot get along in other parts of the world. What brings them together on the left in America is their resentment toward a common enemy: white Christian civilization. The Democratic Party is, in effect, a hate group.

 

[calitennis127]

Luckily, president-elect Trump is doing his best to calm these Islamophobia claims by discussing plans to put a Muslim registry in place, with his team citing World War II Japanese internment camps as "precedent."

Broken, do you think that concerns about Islamic terrorism in America and Europe may have been provoked in recent decades by the actions of Muslims themselves? Notice that the United States has many Hindus living in its states but no one talks about "Hinduphobia." That is because Hindus have not knocked down a skyscraper, bombed a marathon in Boston, killed over ten soldiers at a military base in Texas, killed fifteen co-workers at a holiday party in San Bernardino, or killed fifty-five people in an Orlando nightclub (not to mention what Muslims have done in Europe and other parts of the world).

Fearing Islamic terrorism is not a phobia borne out of psychological disarray; it is entirely rational based on recent world history. If after walking through a certain neighborhood you have been robbed in multiple times you have "fear" of going there again, that is not a psychological disorder at work but a rationally based instinct to protect yourself.

 

[calitennis127]

By "historic mainstream America," it's clear you're dog-whistling to the same tune as Trump and his ilk. That old vision of America is white and exclusionary.

Any culture is, by definition, exclusionary. Mexican culture is exclusionary. Indian culture is exclusionary. Italian culture is exclusionary. Any healthy culture seeks to distinguish itself, elevate itself, celebrate itself, and - yes - preserve itself. That doesn't mean it can't allow immigrants in - but it does mean that immigration should be managed responsibly and done in moderation to allow assimilation to occur. This kind of healthy process is entirely different than the raging revolutionary agenda of the Democratic Party.

What the left is trying to do and what it openly celebrates is turning whites into a minority in the United States through managed government policy. Leftists have been saying this for over a decade and Tim Kaine said it right before the election. This is seen as a positive good: the less whites, the better. What is funny is that by the left's own definitions, this is a racist agenda. If I took an African country, say Nigeria, and I said that its government should explicitly try to bring in as many non-blacks as possible to enrich the country and make blacks a minority, would you call me anti-black? Of course you would.

Furthermore, as an anthropological point, what great world culture ever would have been created with such an attitude? Would Indians have produced their greatest cities, temples, and cultural achievements if they did not define themselves uniquely and distinctly from everyone else? They would not have created their culture by deliberately trying to make themselves a minority in their own region and constantly apologizing to every non-Indian group in Asia for failing to be accepting enough.

The main problem, at the end of the day, is the cultural illiteracy of the American people and in particular the white members of the Democratic Party who think they are well-educated when they are not. The American education system has detached them from their own culture and as a result they are a people without a culture. It is no wonder that they think they have nothing to preserve.

I could easily make the argument that this particular alt-Right branch of the Republican party is far less representative of what America stands for.

What does America stand for? Transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, Hillary paying homeless people to stir up violence at Trump rallies, and Black Lives Matter setting 4 American cities in 2 years on fire? Is that what America stands for?

 

[Asmodeus]

By "historic mainstream America," I am referring to the people (yes, they were overwhelmingly white and of European origin) who made America the leading country in the world over a period of two centuries, not recent imports who are brought in to the country to make you feel wholesome. You can dance around this all you want and deny it, but America was the leading power in the world before the 1965 Immigration Act, and at that point it was roughly 90% white and 10% black with small numbers of other groups dispersed throughout the country. If you take emotion and sentimentalism out of the picture and rationally assess America's history, that is the cold reality.

The Democratic Party is absolutely and unquestionably "anti-white." It encourages and purveys anti-white stereotypes incessantly; whites have oppressed blacks, killed innocent Native Americans, and conspired in a wily strategy to create a subtle system known as "institutional racism" and "white privilege." As Susan Sontag put it, "the white race is the cancer of human history." The only way whites are acceptable is if they, like you, agree with the historically baseless and fact-free version of history served up by the leftist education system. The left is so anti-white that it will not even acknowledge the legitimacy of immigration law. The higher good for the left is that America becomes more racially diverse, so if that means allowing 30 million people to break U.S. law and have U.S. citizens suffer, so be it. The double standards when it comes to race are hilarious in this country: if I say that, generally speaking, white people are terrible at basketball and unathletic, no one really cares. But if someone points out that blacks have higher crime rates than any other group, then they are looked at as a reincarnation of a mass murderer.

The Democratic Party also is absolutely anti-American - if you actually understand what America is. If you define America, as Obama's ignorant ass does, as something having to do with "our values" that leftists invent out of thin air every 5 years, then yes, the Democratic Party is pro-American. But Obama clearly knows nothing about the framing of the U.S. Constitution and has a very superficial understanding of American history, which is also the case with the media and most college graduates. As a result, he gets away with his inanities.

The Democratic Party is a coalition of vastly different groups, such as Muslims and Jews, who cannot get along in other parts of the world. What brings them together on the left in America is their resentment toward a common enemy: white Christian civilization. The Democratic Party is, in effect, a hate group.

While I agree with this assessment in principle (and in fact), I think another way to understand why the left is intolerant, overly emotional, and seemingly largely deranged, stems from the underlying ethos of leftist thinking. Those on the left believe in some fanciful vision of a world order where boarders, race, sexuality, and, most importantly, economics is something other than how nationalists view it. To the left, the group or people are the most important while those on the right view individualism are more important. Thus, to the left the rights of the individual should always give way to the collective. Property is no longer important, national pride is erased, and even sexuality means nothing to the collective if an individual does not want to participate in such identity politics.

While one can have such a view (I sternly oppose such thinking), the problem for the left is that this type of thinking is largely inconsistent in constitutional government where the rights of the individual are the glue that binds a country together. What made the country and the rights we cherish so successful is individual rights, not the identity politics and false hope of diversity that is grounded in an even falser hope of democracy. Thus, where the left finds it difficult to function in a separation of powers system such as the US and frequently argue that the Constitution is antiquated and needs to be scraped, the bigger problem for them is they assume democracy is the answer to all their problems. However, the issue with relying on the people is democracy is a false hope that pulls down society if one side (the left) promises a utopia it can never deliver. In the US system, such a world is impossible. Not only does the Constitution have to be thrown out but segments of society need to be purged. So, in an election such as 2016, the left is left speechless since it can't understand how the masses could get something so wrong. They fail to realize that democracy is simply a method for those with unequal minds to dictate to their superiors conditions under which they should live. And, as should be no surprise, some voters think differently than them.

One particular area where the left has become absolutely unhinged is in identity politics. As is evident from some posters on this site, any opposition to their line of thinking is met with derisive language such as racist, homophobe, xenophobe, sexist, and the like. In creating this bizarre narrative than pushes diversity and safe spaces, by monopolizing such topics the left has actually managed to alienate themselves from mainstream America. When an individual is considered a racist just because they vote for a Republican candidate, all the left manages to do is further segregate themselves from others. Thankfully, the one solution for the left to combat these issues, including the 2016 election, is to move further to the left. They fail to see that most people don't want to hear this logic and would be more receptive if the benefits of government were dispersed widely not targeted.

 

[calitennis127]

Donald Trump started the Birther Movement. It has been proven countless times. Trump was not connected to it? What about the million dollars he was supposed to donate if Obama did not have a U.S. Birth Certificate? Now, I did see this falsehood towards the end of Trump's campaign backpedaling, but Trump's words are on tape and polls still show that many republicans don't believe that Obama was born without the states. Trump is a liar, not just during this campaign but throughout his life.

He absolutely did malign Mexicans saying that they were thieves and rapists. How is that not maligning them? Unreal!

TennisFan, Hillary's campaign in 2008 initiated the birther movement. Hillary even sent researchers to Kenya to look into Obama's roots. This is not something I care much about, but the hypocrisy of leftists in going after Trump on this when Hillary started it all almost defies belief. Also, Trump went after Cruz for being born in Canada. This is not strictly a racial point.

Some illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers. It is a major problem in the southwest and in California. Mexico has its virtues but it is also one of the most violent countries in the world. I have a good Mexican friend who tells me she would never go back because of how dangerous it is. Illegal alien criminality is no myth thrown around by Trump. There is a great deal of information out there about it. Unfortunately, people like you and Moxie won't acknowledge it because you don't want to believe it; it violates your basic principle of equality.

 

[Moxie]

It's rather boring, pedantic and erroneous for people on the right to define US politics on the left. If you understood our point of view, you might not be so opposed. To begin with, I don't know of anyone beyond random anarchists that are talking about scraping the Constitution.

 

[Tennis Fan]

TennisFan, Hillary's campaign in 2008 initiated the birther movement. Hillary even sent researchers to Kenya to look into Obama's roots. This is not something I care much about, but the hypocrisy of leftists in going after Trump on this when Hillary started it all almost defies belief. Also, Trump went after Cruz for being born in Canada. This is not strictly a racial point.

Some illegal immigrants are rapists and murderers. It is a major problem in the southwest and in California. Mexico has its virtues but it is also one of the most violent countries in the world. I have a good Mexican friend who tells me she would never go back because of how dangerous it is. Illegal alien criminality is no myth thrown around by Trump. There is a great deal of information out there about it. Unfortunately, people like you and Moxie won't acknowledge it because you don't want to believe it; it violates your basic principle of equality.

I don't believe it. I remember Trump offering to pay for the birth certificate and saying he was from Kenya. I'm not going to go back and forth though. Everyone knows where that originated from. And yes, I did hear the lie from Trump several months ago shifting the blame. They did many articles citing when and where he started that BS. The difference between us is that I don't believe one word that Trump says. I've known of him for many years and I know how he acts and talks, well before he ran for president. I didn't give him a thought then, or now. I find him to be a disgusting excuse for a human being; misogynistic, racist, hateful, childish, tax evader, foundation cheater and p***** grabber. No, there's nothing anyone to say to me about this cretin.

 

[Tennis Fan]

It's rather boring, pedantic and erroneous for people on the right to define US politics on the left. If you understood our point of view, you might not be so opposed. To begin with, I don't know of anyone beyond random anarchists that are talking about scraping the Constitution.

Exactly, keep it to politics and stop pointing fingers at people because they have opposing views. I haven't seen anyone on the left accusing others of who and what they are. That's just silly.

 

[calitennis127]

It's rather boring, pedantic and erroneous for people on the right to define US politics on the left. If you understood our point of view, you might not be so opposed. To begin with, I don't know of anyone beyond random anarchists that are talking about scraping the Constitution.

I absolutely understand your point of view. I reject it as imprudent, misguided, and false. As a matter of empirical reality, I reject the principle of equality. It is unscientific and requires totalitarian oppression to be truly enforced.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't believe it. I remember Trump offering to pay for the birth certificate and saying he was from Kenya. I'm not going to go back and forth though. Everyone knows where that originated from. And yes, I did hear the lie from Trump several months ago shifting the blame. They did many articles citing when and where he started that BS. The difference between us is that I don't believe one word that Trump says. I've known of him for many years and I know how he acts and talks, well before he ran for president. I didn't give him a thought then, or now. I find him to be a disgusting excuse for a human being; misogynistic, racist, hateful, childish, tax evader, foundation cheater and p***** grabber. No, there's nothing anyone to say to me about this cretin.

You can refuse to believe that Hillary started the birther rumors all you want - she did start them. But, if I may ask, who cares? If I was in Hillary's or Trump's shoes, I would not have cared about Obama being born outside the United States because I know that it does not matter to the left.

The reason you have such a problem with the birther movement is that you hate the suggestion that Obama is un-American, and that is because you want America to be defined in a certain way that Obama matches up with. Obama is a multiculturalist's fantasy: he is biracial, he has a Muslim middle name and a non-Western name altogether, he was educated in a Muslim country, and he has standard leftist views. He is everything you would want in a president to make you feel good, and any suggestion that this picture is somehow not American infuriates you. This isn't even about race; a black conservative is repugnant to the left. What matters are Obama's views in conjunction with the aesthetics that he brings to the table.

Here is the reality: Obama's worldview is fundamentally un-American and anti-American. He is hostile to the core population of the country. All that he defines as being good about America is leftist revolution, which he calls "our values." Furthermore, contrary to the left's silly assertions, Islam has had no significant influence on American history and has in no way contributed to American success. What ticks off the left about the birther accusations is the fundamental contention that Obama is in any way un-American or anti-American, and whether he was born in Kenya or Kansas, he does absolutely represent hostility to the fundamental character of the America that became the leading country in the world.

 

[Moxie]

What does America stand for? Transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, Hillary paying homeless people to stir up violence at Trump rallies, and Black Lives Matter setting 4 American cities in 2 years on fire? Is that what America stands for?

Speaking of imprudent, misguided and false, how about your above? You've cherry-picked a few issues, and then bought an internet lie to make your point. You are demonstrating that you know nothing about the Democratic, liberal POV. "Transgender bathrooms?" There is no such thing. There are bathrooms that are non-sex-assigned, and they're not really uncommon. One-Hopers? Ever hear of them? Jaysus, that can't be your issue. Marriage equality: marriage is a legal contract. We are a secular society and were conceived as such, in case you forgot. Those who came here seeking religious freedom didn't get to pick "freedom to be Christians," even if that's what they meant.

As to this: "What the left is trying to do and what it openly celebrates is turning whites into a minority in the United States through managed government policy. Leftists have been saying this for over a decade and Tim Kaine said it right before the election. This is seen as a positive good: the less whites, the better. What is funny is that by the left's own definitions, this is a racist agenda." This is squirrelly and untrue. And it's paranoid. The US has long opened it's doors to people from different countries and diverse ethnic and religious groups, and we've absorbed them well. We haven't been as exclusionary as some countries, but that is by our very definition. Your notion of excluding groups is, let's face it: racist, nationalistic, and rather un-American.

Also: what the heck is "anti-white?" Are you really willing to say that white people are underprivileged in the US or anywhere else? Or that anyone in the US strives for that? GMAB.

 

[Tennis Fan]

You can refuse to believe that Hillary started the birther rumors all you want - she did start them. But, if I may ask, who cares? If I was in Hillary's or Trump's shoes, I would not have cared about Obama being born outside the United States because I know that it does not matter to the left.

The reason you have such a problem with the birther movement is that you hate the suggestion that Obama is un-American, and that is because you want America to be defined in a certain way that Obama matches up with. Obama is a multiculturalist's fantasy: he is biracial, he has a Muslim middle name and a non-Western name altogether, he was educated in a Muslim country, and he has standard leftist views. He is everything you would want in a president to make you feel good, and any suggestion that this picture is somehow not American infuriates you. This isn't even about race; a black conservative is repugnant to the left. What matters are Obama's views in conjunction with the aesthetics that he brings to the table.

Here is the reality: Obama's worldview is fundamentally un-American and anti-American. He is hostile to the core population of the country. All that he defines as being good about America is leftist revolution, which he calls "our values." Furthermore, contrary to the left's silly assertions, Islam has had no significant influence on American history and has in no way contributed to American success. What ticks off the left about the birther accusations is the fundamental contention that Obama is in any way un-American or anti-American, and whether he was born in Kenya or Kansas, he does absolutely represent hostility to the fundamental character of the America that became the leading country in the world.

You lost me here when you became a mind reader. You don't know what I think and what my reasons are, and it is arrogant and presumptuous to assume that you do. Who do you think you are mind-reading a complete stranger? You can get paid for that as a TV psychic. Don't waste your talents on an internet board.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Speaking of imprudent, misguided and false, how about your above? You've cherry-picked a few issues, and then bought an internet lie to make your point. You are demonstrating that you know nothing about the Democratic, liberal POV. "Transgender bathrooms?" There is no such thing. There are bathrooms that are non-sex-assigned, and they're not really uncommon. One-Hopers? Ever hear of them? Jaysus, that can't be your issue. Marriage equality: marriage is a legal contract. We are a secular society and were conceived as such, in case you forgot. Those who came here seeking religious freedom didn't get to pick "freedom to be Christians," even if that's what they meant.

As to this: "What the left is trying to do and what it openly celebrates is turning whites into a minority in the United States through managed government policy. Leftists have been saying this for over a decade and Tim Kaine said it right before the election. This is seen as a positive good: the less whites, the better. What is funny is that by the left's own definitions, this is a racist agenda." This is squirrelly and untrue. And it's paranoid. The US has long opened it's doors to people from different countries and diverse ethnic and religious groups, and we've absorbed them well. We haven't been as exclusionary as some countries, but that is by our very definition. Your notion of excluding groups is, let's face it: racist, nationalistic, and rather un-American.

Also: what the heck is "anti-white?" Are you really willing to say that white people are underprivileged in the US or anywhere else? Or that anyone in the US strives for that? GMAB.

OMG to the second bolded. I didn't read that far into his/her post and I'm glad I didn't.

 

[Ricardo]

I don't believe it. I remember Trump offering to pay for the birth certificate and saying he was from Kenya. I'm not going to go back and forth though. Everyone knows where that originated from. And yes, I did hear the lie from Trump several months ago shifting the blame. They did many articles citing when and where he started that BS. The difference between us is that I don't believe one word that Trump says. I've known of him for many years and I know how he acts and talks, well before he ran for president. I didn't give him a thought then, or now. I find him to be a disgusting excuse for a human being; misogynistic, racist, hateful, childish, tax evader, foundation cheater and p***** grabber. No, there's nothing anyone to say to me about this cretin.

on and on with labels of the president elect. I'll break this down to what it really means when someone feels the need to shout such banters

misogynist, i am a feminist who accomplish nothing and really hate that men lead the world and are innovators of the world.
racist, i am a minority who doesn't want to own up to personal failure in life
hateful, i am angry because you don't like me
childish, i don't like that you don't say what i want to hear
tax evader, i hate that you make a lot of money
foundation cheater, i might ask Clinton about that
pussy grabber, i am ugly nobody wants to grab me.....very angry!

bottom line, Trump is a success in what he does. When the world was down on him, he persisted. If he bought into naysayers like you, he would've not have gone anywhere...but that would've been not what he is made of in the first place.

Doesn't that teach you something?

Loser.

 

[calitennis127]

Speaking of imprudent, misguided and false, how about your above? You've cherry-picked a few issues, and then bought an internet lie to make your point.

I haven't bought any internet lies. Everything I have said is true. If you are referring to whether Hillary started the birther accusations, she did.

You are demonstrating that you know nothing about the Democratic, liberal POV. "Transgender bathrooms?" There is no such thing. There are bathrooms that are non-sex-assigned, and they're not really uncommon. One-Hopers? Ever hear of them? Jaysus, that can't be your issue. Marriage equality: marriage is a legal contract. We are a secular society and were conceived as such, in case you forgot.

I didn't forget anything. The point I am making is that Obama's retarded claim that his personal wishes represent "core American values" or "what our country stands for" have no basis in reality or history except his own claims that they do. I cannot just stand up and say "I believe X, therefore this is an American value." That is what Obama does. There is no rational or logical basis for claiming that Obama's conception of equality has anything to do with "American values" if we are referring to the actual moral and theoretical foundations of the United States of America.

Your connection between secularism and gay marriage is predictable and silly. If we take Christianity out of the picture, why is a rational person supposed to accept gay marriage? It has never existed before and there are dozens of rational reasons to oppose it. It is a concept borne out of egalitarian hysteria. What you will do to respond to me is predictable: you will throw Christian virtues in my face and say that we need to be "compassionate" or "sensitive." Well why? Why as a rational cognizant human am I supposed to agree with your idea of what compassion means? And why must I agree to apply it? It has been clear to human beings for millennia across all civilizations that homosexuals demonstrate psychological abnormalities and suffer from much higher rates of disease. It requires insane leftists from the Christian egalitarian heritage to normalize such an irrational and boneheaded concept.

You are a classic example of Christian heresy run amok.

Those who came here seeking religious freedom didn't get to pick "freedom to be Christians," even if that's what they meant.

They would not have been speaking of anything else, because 95%-plus of the colonial generation was Christian. Besides, all the 1st Amendment says is that Congress cannot impose a religion on all of the states. It says nothing about people entering the country (which is why Trump's Muslim ban idea is entirely constitutional), nor does it say anything about what the states themselves can agree to do.

This is squirrelly and untrue.

No, Tim Kaine did say that it was great that whites would become a minority. Time Magazine and the Atlantic have both run numerous stories on this trend, such as this one:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/the-end-of-white-america/307208/

What I said about the left celebrating whites becoming a minority is absolutely true.

And it's paranoid. The US has long opened it's doors to people from different countries and diverse ethnic and religious groups, and we've absorbed them well.

In moderation and with intermittent pauses.

This statement from you is the type that is almost entirely emotional and not rooted in any fact, reason, or specificity. You are merely appealing to a certain mawkish sentimentalism. The truth is that the U.S. has not had Barack Obama's immigration policy since Day 1. American immigration has been on-again and off-again and much more limited than the immigration of recent decades. Some decades have had high immigration and others have had low immigration; it has been an intermittent pattern. Also, between 1924 and 1965 there was virtually zero immigration to the United States, including from Europe. Did the Americans who presided over the government in that timeframe fail to understand "American values"? Why did they not know what the proper values were?

Opening doors to people from different countries and diverse backgrounds on a limited basis has been allowed. But what the modern left in Europe and America is doing is completely different, even if there are some true believers who want to put a smiley face on it all. Modern leftists are not merely asking America to be welcoming to people of different backgrounds. No, they are calling for their governments to actively promote the most sweeping demographic revolution of a country in world history - imposed by their own governments! This is being done out of contempt for the Christian heritage of the West and hostility to traditional Western identity. Once again, it has nothing to do with being polite to people of different backgrounds. It is much more vituperative and revolutionary than that.

We haven't been as exclusionary as some countries, but that is by our very definition.

According to what? Cite a source. What is "our very definition?" Have you ever read the Constitution? There is nothing in it about being "inclusive" or "exclusionary." That is your language. You are doing the same thing as Obama - somehow stating that your own views represent "American values" or "our very definition."

Where does this presumptuousness come from? Please cite a single source that would establish what you say is "our very definition."

Your notion of excluding groups is, let's face it: racist, nationalistic, and rather un-American.

Moxie, first of all, my notion of "excluding groups" is universal to anyone who understands how human cultures are formed and sustained. There is not a single great culture that has not been exclusive; exclusivity is essential to human culture. A culture cannot be created without a specific definition and it cannot be sustained without a commitment to that identity. The culturally illiterate fake cosmopolitanism of the modern left is a goofy gimmick and a lazy excuse to never learn anything about any culture, including one's own.

Second, I don't think in terms of "excluding groups." That negative characterization is your choice of words, not mine. I think in terms of preserving my own culture. To that end, other groups can be admitted, but they should be encouraged to assimilate. I have a genuine love for what is best in my own civilization, not a hatred for other civilizations. Leftists hate their own civilization while pretending to like others they don't know about. Big difference.

Third, yes I am a nationalist and proud of it. Nations are tied to meaningful human cultures, which are what give richness and vitality to human life. So yes, I am absolutely a nationalist.

Fourth, again, you must cite a single legitimate source when claiming that someone you disagree with holds "un-American" views. There is nothing "un-American" about having immigration laws and immigration restrictions. They have been in place since 1787, and there have been numerous periods, such as 1924-1965, in which America took in little to no immigrants. There is nothing in the Constitution or any legal document that requires the United States to take in 4 million immigrants per year and give citizenship to anyone who sneaks over the border.

Also: what the heck is "anti-white?" Are you really willing to say that white people are underprivileged in the US or anywhere else? Or that anyone in the US strives for that? GMAB.

Anti-white means saying that the white race has been the most evil race in human history, as Susan Sontag (a vintage leftist) said. Being anti-white means smearing any movement among Americans or Europeans that seeks to preserve historical cultural identity as Nazism, while allowing other groups to openly celebrate their identity. Being anti-white means saying that white people, out of greed and malevolence, have conspired throughout history to make non-whites suffer oppression. Being non-white means blaming every affliction of minority groups (e.g. black crime) on white prejudice or white malevolence.

Your choice of words is very telling here. You are asking me if I think white people are underprivileged because you can only think in terms of equality. That is completely besides the point.

 

[calitennis127]

You lost me here when you became a mind reader. You don't know what I think and what my reasons are, and it is arrogant and presumptuous to assume that you do. Who do you think you are mind-reading a complete stranger? You can get paid for that as a TV psychic. Don't waste your talents on an internet board.

Notice that you did not deny that what I said was true. You merely found it presumptuous of me to state it.

 

[Moxie]

Cali, you are beyond too hysterical to respond to. In general, I will say to you and Ricardo that you miss completely the point of liberalism and progressivism. You both shout to angry, exclusionary points. And you try to make us the antithesis of your rancorous, small-minded, 1950s view of America, or 1930s view from Germany. You're trying to make an argument for white America. Liberals are not anti-white. FFS. You're trying to close down immigration. We're not about immigrants stampeding the borders. We are not the antithesis of your argument. We're very different from it. You should try to see that. Liberals and progressives believe in inclusion. We believe in the Great American Experiment. And we do believe that hate-speech and hate-thought is against all of our principals, as a nation. Straight, white men need to get over their feelings of entitlement. The United States wasn't made just for them (or you,) however flawed the status quo was structured. There is a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and essential philosophy to freedom of religion, including no religion. As I said before, marriage is a civil contract. No one is forced to get gay-married, and no one's church/temple/mosque is required to perform same-sex marriages. No one is forced to have an abortion. However, we still, tenuously, uphold a woman's right to make her own choices about her own body and family. We champion the rights of all Americans. I'm not completely sure what you lot stand for, but it's fairly clear that it's not the rights of black, brown, Muslim, gay, Jewish Americans or women. So what does that leave? Oh, and your leader hasn't disavowed the KKK, who supports him. Are you comfortable with that?

 

[Tennis Fan]

Cali, you are beyond too hysterical to respond to. In general, I will say to you and Ricardo that you miss completely the point of liberalism and progressivism. You both shout to angry, exclusionary points. And you try to make us the antithesis of your rancorous, small-minded, 1950s view of America, or 1930s view from Germany. You're trying to make an argument for white America. Liberals are not anti-white. FFS. You're trying to close down immigration. We're not about immigrants stampeding the borders. We are not the antithesis of your argument. We're very different from it. You should try to see that. Liberals and progressives believe in inclusion. We believe in the Great American Experiment. And we do believe that hate-speech and hate-thought is against all of our principals, as a nation. Straight, white men need to get over their feelings of entitlement. The United States wasn't made just for them (or you,) however flawed the status quo was structured. There is a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and essential philosophy to freedom of religion, including no religion. As I said before, marriage is a civil contract. No one is forced to get gay-married, and no one's church/temple/mosque is required to perform same-sex marriages. No one is forced to have an abortion. However, we still, tenuously, uphold a woman's right to make her own choices about her own body and family. We champion the rights of all Americans. I'm not completely sure what you lot stand for, but it's fairly clear that it's not the rights of black, brown, Muslim, gay, Jewish Americans or women. So what does that leave? Oh, and your leader hasn't disavowed the KKK, who supports him. Are you comfortable with that?

Excellent post, Moxie.

It is clear that many people do not understand the politics of liberals by the harsh tone they take and the insulting way that they talk down to them. A brief description of what "Liberals" want is for America to be the country that it claims to be, not use symbolism and underhanded methods to have their own way. If America is to be a melting pot then let that show in our actions. But don't stand behind a racist, misogynistic man who won't even pay his taxes and then try to act holier than thou. This man is supported by the KKK. That says a lot about where people's loyalties lie. This is not the 1950's. The world is expanding and it is mankind's responsibility to bring people together to peacefully co-exist, not build walls of divisiveness. Anyone upholding that type of behavior is not to be taken seriously, in my book. Who made America God and said only these and not them? What earth did they create? People get besides themselves with these notions of superiority. All it does is shine a light on their true intentions.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, you are beyond too hysterical to respond to. In general, I will say to you and Ricardo that you miss completely the point of liberalism and progressivism. You both shout to angry, exclusionary points. And you try to make us the antithesis of your rancorous, small-minded, 1950s view of America, or 1930s view from Germany. You're trying to make an argument for white America. Liberals are not anti-white. FFS. You're trying to close down immigration. We're not about immigrants stampeding the borders. We are not the antithesis of your argument. We're very different from it. You should try to see that. Liberals and progressives believe in inclusion. We believe in the Great American Experiment. And we do believe that hate-speech and hate-thought is against all of our principals, as a nation. Straight, white men need to get over their feelings of entitlement. The United States wasn't made just for them (or you,) however flawed the status quo was structured. There is a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and essential philosophy to freedom of religion, including no religion. As I said before, marriage is a civil contract. No one is forced to get gay-married, and no one's church/temple/mosque is required to perform same-sex marriages. No one is forced to have an abortion. However, we still, tenuously, uphold a woman's right to make her own choices about her own body and family. We champion the rights of all Americans. I'm not completely sure what you lot stand for, but it's fairly clear that it's not the rights of black, brown, Muslim, gay, Jewish Americans or women. So what does that leave? Oh, and your leader hasn't disavowed the KKK, who supports him. Are you comfortable with that?

Again, no rational response. I offer facts and arguments and I ask direct questions, and I get this garbage in return. I brought up how immigration has been intermittent since the 1780s, and that the U.S. Congress has repeatedly enacted immigration laws that were upheld. I brought up low immigration periods. In return, I get nothing but sentimental cliches about what America is supposed to mean, without any evidence or backing at all. Simply Moxie's bias. This demonstrates that the Democratic Party is based on ignorance.

Cali, you are beyond too hysterical to respond to. In general, I will say to you and Ricardo that you miss completely the point of liberalism and progressivism. You both shout to angry, exclusionary points.

No, we both make rational arguments that you have no response to because you know nothing about history or political theory. It is hard for us to argue with an ignoramus.

And you try to make us the antithesis of your rancorous, small-minded, 1950s view of America, or 1930s view from Germany.

Britbox - if you wonder why I call people on this board names, just read this line. I am arguing with a complete ignoramus whose understanding of history and the world is irrational and not rooted in any epistemological truth whatsoever.

Let's get one thing straight - 1950s America was the leading country in the world. There is no reason to denigrate it. It was the country that everyone wanted to come to. Without 1950s America and its ancestors, there would have been no prosperous and successful America for later immigrants to join up with.

Second, it was the generation of 1940s and 1950s Americans that defeated the Nazis in World War II. To equate 1950s America with 1930s Germany demonstrates an astonishing level of ignorance. People like Moxie call others narrow-minded but are, in reality, the narrow-minded ones. She has no idea what she is talking about to make such a stupid comparison. It shows she knows nothing about American or German history and is simply in the game of smearing ideological opponents. Her ignorance is her sword.

Liberals are not anti-white.

I gave you multiple examples of how they are and you provided no rational retort. However, I must say that you make a great case for despising the white race.

You're trying to close down immigration. We're not about immigrants stampeding the borders.

Again, this demonstrates the low IQ of the average Democratic voter. I have not once said that I am trying to "close down" immigration. What I have called for is a responsible and moderate immigration flow that is LEGALLY managed and serves America's interests.

In practice, the left is about immigrants stampeding the borders. Obama encouraged illegal immigrants to vote and 3 million did vote. You are living in a fantasy land if you do not see that.

Liberals and progressives believe in inclusion. We believe in the Great American Experiment.

Again, this is not rational. This is not based on any fact. This is strictly sentimental. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about a "Great American Experiment." There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that mandates allowing massive illegal immigration. Your definition of what America means contradicts how most Americans have thought of America throughout the country's history and it is purely self-serving. It is not based on fact or reason.

Also, it requires absurd non-sequiturs. Allowing people from all over the world to enter the country in moderation and with a legal process is entirely different than encouraging a massive, self-hating demographic revolution without any concern for legality. If you believe in being open to qualified immigrants from across the world, as I do, this does not mean you have to accept the stupid current stance of the Democratic Party on immigration.

And we do believe that hate-speech and hate-thought is against all of our principals, as a nation.

The conservative position on immigration is not hateful. You and other leftists abuse and misuse language to no end. It is the traditional position of America and the human race on immigration, which is concerned with preserving one's culture. By your definition, dozens of great American leaders were "hateful." That is a stupid and irrational thing to say, and again, has no basis in fact. What you are saying is that during the numerous decades in American history (e.g. 1924-1965) when immigration was low, America was "hateful" and failed to live up to its ideals, whatever those happen to be according to you. This is irrational nonsense.

Straight, white men need to get over their feelings of entitlement. The United States wasn't made just for them (or you,) however flawed the status quo was structured.

Great example here of the anti-white perspective of the Democratic Party, from Moxie herself. What's the problem in the world, according to her? The so-called "entitlement" of straight, white men. What's the problem in America? Straight, white men. Why are they the problem? Because through some malevolent conspiracy they have maintained "entitlement" throughout history to be mean to other groups.

The United States constitution was made for U.S. citizens in the late 1700s and was to remain the legal document of the land indefinitely. It was made to function for the American citizenry. It was not conceived of to viciously exclude anyone just for kicks or to prevent the early Americans from preserving their cultural identity. There is nothing in the American founding that mandates an incessant flow of massive numbers of illegal and legal immigrants each year.

Straight, white males successfully built up America and made it a success that everyone across the world wanted to emigrate to. They should not be scorned as some kind of malignant tumor on the body politic. Straight, white males have a right to their property and to participation in the legislative process. That is all that matters when you are talking about policy. The use of the word "entitlement," again, is irrational and misapplied. The debate on immigration has nothing to do with who is entitled or not entitled.

There is a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and essential philosophy to freedom of religion, including no religion.

None of these documents or concepts match at all with how you define America.

As I said before, marriage is a civil contract. No one is forced to get gay-married, and no one's church/temple/mosque is required to perform same-sex marriages.

Again, how is this a rational response to what I said? I asked why a rational thinking human being should be for gay marriage. I get no answer except some kind of ahistorical invocation of political cliches Moxie likes. For now, I will just leave it at this: America was founded in 1787. There was no gay marriage until the early 2000s. If there was something explicit in American principles about gay marriage being a necessity, it would have been allowed much sooner. It was not. Gay marriage is nothing more than a silly fad of people who do not think rationally.

I'm not completely sure what you lot stand for, but it's fairly clear that it's not the rights of black, brown, Muslim, gay, Jewish Americans or women.

Again, these non sequiturs are baffling. How in the world does wanting a legally managed, responsible immigration policy that respects the historic identity of America violate of the "rights" of black or brown Americans? We are talking about two entirely separate issues. If someone is a citizen of the United States, they have certain legal rights, regardless of their race. This has nothing to do with 20 million illegal immigrants or determining who should be allowed into the country and in what numbers. The rights of black and brown American citizens have nothing at all to do with immigration policy. They are two separate matters (although, ironically, continuing to allow massive Third World immigration will make life worse for most black and Hispanic Americans). This kind of irrational blurring of the conversation is exactly what poisons the discourse in America today.

"Muslim Americans" are a tiny fraction of the population that have nothing to do with historic American identity. Ignorant people who know nothing about Islam define "Muslim Americans" in a way that gives them self-satisfaction. You don't seek to understand Islam or Muslims. You simply try to define them in a way that works for your worldview. It must be great to be so ignorant and repressive of rational thought.

Jewish-Americans? What are you talking about? What do Jewish Americans have to do with this conversation?

Oh, and your leader hasn't disavowed the KKK, who supports him. Are you comfortable with that?

Obama has gotten support from many violent, hateful groups, such as Black Lives Matter. The KKK has not burned down 4 American cities in 2 years; Black Lives Matter has. Trump did not pay people to stir up violence at opposing political rallies; Hillary Clinton did. Trump supporters did not block off the roads in multiple American cities, attack police, damage property, and assault people in the aftermath of the election; Obama fans did.

I actually do not care what the KKK has to say. The KKK has no power or influence; if they did, I would oppose them. I do not care that the KKK supports Trump or that satanists and violent Communists supported Hillary. In each case, we are talking about marginalized fringe groups that have no influence. It is impossible for Trump to control the opinion of everyone in the world.