Why do educated voters LIKE Donald Trump?

concernedpuma said:

I can't help but note that you are attempting to romanticize many of your points. Had you lived-in the time periods you call galling, you might well have found yourself believing internment camps seemed a good idea. As to the Irish I the civil war, please review the circumstances. The Union Army was a paying job and was therefor appealing to many immigrants.
I am not here to say immigrants haven't contributed a great deal, quite the contrary, they have. Really, we ae all the descendants of some immigration.
My objection is to pretend that though something helped in the past, it will always be so. There are exceptions to every rule and to extrapolate that something once beneficial will always be so, is lazy and quite honestly, dangerously short sighted.
Regards,
CP

Click to expand...

There is no “romanticization” involved. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. If it was just a paycheck to the Irish or the Germans, they wouldn’t have fought as long and hard as they did, tolerated the casualties they took, and hurled themselves into the fray all over again. Those folks, refugees of the Revolutions of 1848, where the forces of ultra-conservatism came down like a ton of bricks in effort to destroy “liberalism”, truly believed in America and the promise of what this country had to offer, and they fought hard for it.

The internment camps were idiotic, born out of nothing more than racist stupidity. A bunch of nativist morons couldn’t handle the fact that non-white immigrants worked just as hard— harder, in many cases— than they did, and used the “Yellow Peril” myth to justify their hatred. The Office of Naval Intelligence found little to no evidence of any disloyalty, but the nativists threw such a ****fit that the government decided to appease them.

To go through all that— to be hounded miles from your home into a glorified prison camp because a bunch of morons think they are better than you because their family immigrated earlier and they had white skin— and yet still fight with such bravery and loyalty is incredible.

The folks who are far more dangerous than any immigrant are the people who think that skin color and when you got here makes one a “real American” or not....as history has shown over and over.

Tigerace117 said:

Yawn. More of the same old fear-mongering that nativists have been spewing for well over a century.....and it’s still utter garbage. Immigrants and the children of immigrants have proven, over and over and over again, that they are just as loyal to the United States as any of the folks who were here in 1776.

Irishmen and Germans fresh off the boat proved themselves over and over and over again in the crucible of the Civil War, despite the scorn and hatred of people who worried about America “becoming a bunch of minorities”. A particularly galling example of nativist stupidity is that of the Japanese American internment camps. Large numbers of innocent people were systematically discriminated against and interned based on nothing more than racist stupidity. Meanwhile, the Nisei of the 442nd Infantry Regiment proved their loyalty over and over and over again, fighting with incredible bravery. They are still the most decorated unit in US military history. Twenty one of them won Medals of Honor.

The unit, meanwhile, was almost entirely the children of immigrants.

Experience shows that your arguments are garbage, and yet folks who are constantly ****ting their pants over the fact that America isn’t as lily white as it was in the “good old days” constantly roll out the same old ****.

If we let nativists like you have their way our cities will look like Berlin in 1933....or 1945.

Click to expand...

I figured you'd crop up again. I recall fondly your your post of the decade sizing uo
the noble gestures of Forrest’s many black well-wishers: That was one for the ages!. After that you've been in a slump

'The blacks knew if they didn't show up at Forrest's funeral they'd have a mob of thugs on their doorstep.’

After that bombastic flourish which was one for the ages you've been in a slump!

If that post wasn’t evidence of a miserable fanatical scribbler then I don’t know what is!

How wrong is it to take no provision for the likely darknes that looms ahead!
Common sense is not hate speech, and realism is not racism.
I’ve literally done nothing but thrash your deceptive trash whenever we've debated?

slick said:

I figured you'd crop up again. I recall fondly your your post of the decade sizing uo
the noble gestures of Forrest’s many black well-wishers: That was one for the ages!. After that you've been in a slump

'The blacks knew if they didn't show up at Forrest's funeral they'd have a mob of thugs on their doorstep.’

After that bombastic flourish which was one for the ages you've been in a slump!

If that post wasn’t evidence of a miserable fanatical scribbler then I don’t know what is!

How wrong is it to take no provision for the likely darknes that looms ahead!
Common sense is not hate speech, and realism is not racism.
I’ve literally done nothing but thrash your deceptive trash whenever we've debated?

Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder how many of those “well wishers” wound up hanging from a tree at the hands of Forrest’s men. How many of their wives and daughters were raped by the thugs of Forrest’s Klansmen. How many of them had family members sold off, never to be seen again, to put a buck in Forrest’s pocket. How many of their descendents would be shot or lynched or blown to bits by Forrest’s scum as the years went on.

Your heroes proved over and over that they would rampage, rape and murder African Americans at the drop of the hat. No wonder the local community desperately hoped that appeasing them would stop their depredations. Naive, but to be expected.

I do love how you totally fail to address anything in my post in favor of repeating yourself using slightly different words. Then again, expecting basic intelligence out of you is like expecting a stone to start singing soprano......,it ain’t happening :lamo

You’ve done nothing but humiliate yourself over and over every time you’ve posted your lost cause garbage.

None of your post has anything remotely close to “common sense”.

Tigerace117 said:

There is no “romanticization” involved. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. If it was just a paycheck to the Irish or the Germans, they wouldn’t have fought as long and hard as they did, tolerated the casualties they took, and hurled themselves into the fray all over again. Those folks, refugees of the Revolutions of 1848, where the forces of ultra-conservatism came down like a ton of bricks in effort to destroy “liberalism”, truly believed in America and the promise of what this country had to offer, and they fought hard for it.

The internment camps were idiotic, born out of nothing more than racist stupidity. A bunch of nativist morons couldn’t handle the fact that non-white immigrants worked just as hard— harder, in many cases— than they did, and used the “Yellow Peril” myth to justify their hatred. The Office of Naval Intelligence found little to no evidence of any disloyalty, but the nativists threw such a ****fit that the government decided to appease them.

To go through all that— to be hounded miles from your home into a glorified prison camp because a bunch of morons think they are better than you because their family immigrated earlier and they had white skin— and yet still fight with such bravery and loyalty is incredible.

The folks who are far more dangerous than any immigrant are the people who think that skin color and when you got here makes one a “real American” or not....as history has shown over and over.

Click to expand...

I don't know how you can write the Romantic notion = There is no “romanticization” involved. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. If it was just a paycheck to the Irish or the Germans, they wouldn’t have fought as long and hard as they did, tolerated the casualties they took, and hurled themselves into the fray all over again. Those folks, refugees of the Revolutions of 1848, where the forces of ultra-conservatism came down like a ton of bricks in effort to destroy “liberalism and not recognize the romanticized and fanciful notion. Quite truthfully, I don't know how you can posit "the casualties they took" as a horrendous exception as compared to any other race or grouping of your choice without defining that bar.
I also repeat that your hindsight makes Americans at that point in time look foolish, but had you lived through it, you too might have been one of the fools who thought it was a good idea to inter the Japanese, I am fairly certain I would have, though today, I certainly regret that it happened. Revision of history requires more than a bleeding heart.
Regards,
CP

Puigb said:

Probably Trump.

Click to expand...

i think that is completely devoid of factual support

slick said:

By 2050 America will be a Third World nation. All ourur cities will look like Los
Angeles today. Los Angeles and the cities of Texas, Arizona and California will look like Mexico City.

When we all belong to “minorities,” what will hold us together? With the rise of group rights and identity
politics, we are already falling out and falling apart over racial preferences and ethnic entitlements.

Progressives adamantly refuse to act, apparently paralyzed by a belief that restricting the
free movement of peoples from foreign lands violates one of the great commandments of
liberal democracy. We are truly dealing here with an ideology of Western suicide.

Refusing to accept what human experience teaches is the mark of a liberal utopian ideologue.
For the last four decades maybe even five the prominent thinking by the Establishment tried
to 'create the concept of the ideal nation the most egalitarian, diverse & liberated that
ever existed.

'No stable society can stand on a theory running counter to reality’

Click to expand...

I am not a big fan of identity politics, but check your history. Ben Franklin complained about a new wave of German immigrants, presumably Catholics from southern Germany. One guy back in the day suggested that Jews, Irish and southern Italians were not really white because they came from the eastern, northwestern and southern edges of Europe respectively. We survived.

You sound like the old southerners aghast at the idea of the “mongrelization” of the white race. As such, you are part of a grand tradition of panic in the US that seems to occur after periods of immigration, one that Trump exploited brilliantly. Mexicans even joke about this, saying that the three largest cities in their country are Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Los Angeles. And indeed, recent Mexican migrants have forced us in California to change our place names to Spanish. Even real estate developers have succumbed, naming new sub developments ”Rancho Vista” and “Pueblo Nuevo.”

We are lost. By the way, Mexico City, despite grinding poverty in some areas, is gorgeous. Great architecture in modern buildings, great varieties of food, extraordinary culture, a fabulous anthropological museum, people who stroll the closed down Reforma on Sundays. Last time there, little 12-year old girls were giving out free hugs. Doesn’t make up for government repression or drug gangs in some areas, but hey, that’s the US in a nutshell.

concernedpuma said:

I don't know how you can write the Romantic notion = There is no “romanticization” involved. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. If it was just a paycheck to the Irish or the Germans, they wouldn’t have fought as long and hard as they did, tolerated the casualties they took, and hurled themselves into the fray all over again. Those folks, refugees of the Revolutions of 1848, where the forces of ultra-conservatism came down like a ton of bricks in effort to destroy “liberalism and not recognize the romanticized and fanciful notion. Quite truthfully, I don't know how you can posit "the casualties they took" as a horrendous exception as compared to any other race or grouping of your choice without defining that bar.
I also repeat that your hindsight makes Americans at that point in time look foolish, but had you lived through it, you too might have been one of the fools who thought it was a good idea, I am fairly certain I would have, though today, I certainly regret that it happened. Revision of history requires more than a bleeding heart.
Regards,
CP

Click to expand...

Again, it is just historical fact. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. Saddam’s military folded like a house of cards during Desert Storm because they didn’t believe in his Kuwaiti adventure. When they were fighting against the Iranians, they dug in and fought hard against a fanatical foe. We learned the same lesson in Vietnam, which is a big part of why we abandoned the idea of a conscript military. The Libyans failed in Chad because their troops didn’t believe in the fight, and the technological inferior Chadians won a number of stunning victories over a demoralized foe. The Tsarist forces in World War One lost because, amongst numerous other reasons, the rank and file didn’t believe in the Tsar anymore. There are literally hundreds of examples.

So no, there is no “romanticization” involved. As for the Civil War.....the Irish and German units quickly gained a reputation for fighting hard and enduring casualties above and beyond what other units took. The Irish Brigade suffered more losses than almost any other unit in the entire Union Army; only the 1st Vermont and Iron Brigade took more. So again, no “romanticization”. Just facts.

Again, the investigation done at the time found no evidence of disloyalty. The nativists simply didn’t care. They wanted the land, they wanted competition from those they saw as racially inferior gone, and they were willing to do anything to make that happen.

Blue Donkey said:

It is only nonsensical if a Donald Trump supporter needs to ask. If you are a Trump supporter, you like him as a man and can tell me why very clearly.

Click to expand...

Blue, why is it that you can't understand that many here don't pretend to judge others by the things they have been told of them? I wouldn't like to have Donald Trump at a backyard cookout for long, so I guess I don't like his personality. But, as a President, he does a great job. Further, I doubt if he could eat the Hamburgers I cook, but he still gets my vote.
Regard,
CP

Tigerace117 said:

Again, it is just historical fact. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. Saddam’s military folded like a house of cards during Desert Storm because they didn’t believe in his Kuwaiti adventure. When they were fighting against the Iranians, they dug in and fought hard against a fanatical foe. We learned the same lesson in Vietnam, which is a big part of why we abandoned the idea of a volunteer military. The Libyans failed in Chad because their troops didn’t believe in the fight, and the technological inferior Chadians won a number of stunning victories over a demoralized foe. The Tsarist forces in World War One lost because, amongst numerous other reasons, the rank and file didn’t believe in the Tsar anymore. There are literally hundreds of examples.

So no, there is no “romanticization” involved. As for the Civil War.....the Irish and German units quickly gained a reputation for fighting hard and enduring casualties above and beyond what other units took. The Irish Brigade suffered more losses than almost any other unit in the entire Union Army; only the 1st Vermont and Iron Brigade took more. So again, no “romanticization”. Just facts.

Again, the investigation done at the time found no evidence of disloyalty. The nativists simply didn’t care. They wanted the land, they wanted competition from those they saw as racially inferior gone, and they were willing to do anything to make that happen.

Click to expand...

Friend, you don't seem to have a grasp of combat, or the survival instinct. If all you write is so, what then do you have to say about the German , Italian and Japanese fighters? If you only concede that the Japanese Army during WW2 was racist(q.v. Nanking) - why then can't you see that racism was an integral part of that war, and internment was looked at in a different way? Your grotesque notion that someone or someone's tried to benefit from the internment is just another non-sequitur from the act of internment. See why I suspect you of revisionism?
Regards,
CP

concernedpuma said:

Friend, you don't seem to have a grasp of combat, or the survival instinct. If all you write is so, what then do you have to say about the German , Italian and Japanese fighters? If you only concede that the Japanese Army during WW2 was racist(q.v. Nanking) - why then can't you see that racism was an integral part of that war, and internment was looked at in a different way? Your grotesque notion that someone or someone's tried to benefit from the internment is just another non-sequitur from the act of internment. See why I suspect you of revisionism?
Regards,
CP

Click to expand...

The Germans’ Osttrupen conscripts fought noticeably less effectively than their regular troops....as did the Volkssturm, whose main qualification was having a detectable pulse. The Italians’ performance was never especially good, and became particularly lackluster as time went on and Mussolini lost the belief of his people. The fact that the Axis Powers were virulently racist does not excuse the stupidity and bigotry of nativists here in the US.

Simple “survival instinct” does not explain why the men of the Irish Brigade, or the 442nd, would go so far above and beyond in fighting for the US.

Um....no, financial gain was one of the main ideas behind internment, along with racism. The Nativists thought the Japanese were out-competing them and were desperately to get rid of the “Yellow Peril”.

“ The deportation and incarceration were popular among many white farmers who resented the Japanese American farmers. "White American farmers admitted that their self-interest required removal of the Japanese."[48] These individuals saw internment as a convenient means of uprooting their Japanese-American competitors.

Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942:

We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It's a question of whether the White man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over... If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we'd never miss them in two weeks because the White farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either.[61]”

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia

In other words, you are ignorant about the reality of what went on, and are grasping at straws to justify nativist bigotry.

Tigerace117 said:

Again, it is just historical fact. Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in. Saddam’s military folded like a house of cards during Desert Storm because they didn’t believe in his Kuwaiti adventure. When they were fighting against the Iranians, they dug in and fought hard against a fanatical foe. We learned the same lesson in Vietnam, which is a big part of why we abandoned the idea of a conscript military. The Libyans failed in Chad because their troops didn’t believe in the fight, and the technological inferior Chadians won a number of stunning victories over a demoralized foe. The Tsarist forces in World War One lost because, amongst numerous other reasons, the rank and file didn’t believe in the Tsar anymore. There are literally hundreds of examples.

So no, there is no “romanticization” involved. As for the Civil War.....the Irish and German units quickly gained a reputation for fighting hard and enduring casualties above and beyond what other units took. The Irish Brigade suffered more losses than almost any other unit in the entire Union Army; only the 1st Vermont and Iron Brigade took more. So again, no “romanticization”. Just facts.

Again, the investigation done at the time found no evidence of disloyalty. The nativists simply didn’t care. They wanted the land, they wanted competition from those they saw as racially inferior gone, and they were willing to do anything to make that happen.

Click to expand...

Hey, you actually may have stumbled into posting something that makes a certain amount of sense.
'Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in.'

As the 'Wizard of the Saddle' often revealed about the black soldiers who fought for their homeland with him!
'When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-six of them surrendered with me.
I told these boys if we lose you will be made free. If we win the
fight and you stay with me I will free you all. Either way you will be freed. These boys stayed
with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live”.

In fact, part of his special command escort later called "the green berets" (ironic isn't it),
consisted of the most elite and best soldiers available, and among them were eight black men.
2 black men road with him the entire war. Napoleon Nelson and Nim Wilkes were their names.

Nickyjo said:

I am not a big fan of identity politics, but check your history. Ben Franklin complained about a new wave of German immigrants, presumably Catholics from southern Germany. One guy back in the day suggested that Jews, Irish and southern Italians were not really white because they came from the eastern, northwestern and southern edges of Europe respectively. We survived.

You sound like the old southerners aghast at the idea of the “mongrelization” of the white race. As such, you are part of a grand tradition of panic in the US that seems to occur after periods of immigration, one that Trump exploited brilliantly. Mexicans even joke about this, saying that the three largest cities in their country are Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Los Angeles. And indeed, recent Mexican migrants have forced us in California to change our place names to Spanish. Even real estate developers have succumbed, naming new sub developments ”Rancho Vista” and “Pueblo Nuevo.”

We are lost. By the way, Mexico City, despite grinding poverty in some areas, is gorgeous. Great architecture in modern buildings, great varieties of food, extraordinary culture, a fabulous anthropological museum, people who stroll the closed down Reforma on Sundays. Last time there, little 12-year old girls were giving out free hugs. Doesn’t make up for government repression or drug gangs in some areas, but hey, that’s the US in a nutshell.

Click to expand...

The immigrants circa 1900 were all white, all European and almost all were Christian.
'After each wave of immigration there were long periods of little or no immigration
giving time for the Americans to assimilate the newcomers.
Their children passed through deeply patriotic schools where they were
immersed in the language, literature, history & traditions uniquely American.


Today however those schools have been converted to the point that American
history is often taught as a series of crimes against people of color Today’s
immigrants are rarely European, rarely Christian & rarely white. Today's elites
who promote the flood of immigartion ignore the crucial elements that
made America work for over 200 years.

Concede the point!

slick said:

Hey, you actually may have stumbled into posting something that makes a certain amount of sense.
'Nobody can force soldiers to fight hard for a cause they don’t believe in.'

As the 'Wizard of the saddle often revealed about the black soldiers who fought for their homeland with him!
'When I entered the army I took forty-seven Negroes into the army with me, and forty-six of them surrendered with me.
I told these boys if we lose you will be made free. If we win the
fight and you stay with me I will free you all. Either way you will be freed. These boys stayed
with me, drove my teams, and better confederates did not live”.

In fact, part of his special command escort later called "the green berets" (ironic isn't it),
consisted of the most elite and best soldiers available, and among them were eight black men.
2 black men road with him the entire war. Napoleon Nelson and Nim Wilkes were their names.

Click to expand...

In other words, he took advantage of people who were desperate to avoid being sold anyway from their families— or their families being sold away from them— in a war where the South losing meant that he couldn’t keep them as slaves anyway. The promise of freedom is a great motivator......but it isn’t exactly a ringing character endorsement, especially since he and his men committed numerous atrocities, such as at Fort Pillow, where he was at very least in neglect of his duties as an officer and far more likely purposefully allowed.

I rather doubt a slave trader like Forrest would have abided by his word if the South had somehow managed to win.

calamity said:

That's a true statement. When it came to educated voters (those with at least one college degree), Hillary beat Trump by 39 points.

In fact, the beat down was so bad, Trumpers now argue that college education does not serve as an adequate measure of intelligence. :lol:

Click to expand...

There should be an entire thread meant for fallacies like these.

Tigerace117 said:

In other words, he took advantage of people who were desperate to avoid being sold anyway from their families— or their families being sold away from them— in a war where the South losing meant that he couldn’t keep them as slaves anyway. The promise of freedom is a great motivator......but it isn’t exactly a ringing character endorsement, especially since he and his men committed numerous atrocities, such as at Fort Pillow, where he was at very least in neglect of his duties as an officer and far more likely purposefully allowed.

I rather doubt a slave trader like Forrest would have abided by his word if the South had somehow managed to win.

Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not as utterly blinded by bias as you!

Your disdain for the greatest cavalry soldier horse or mechanized ever born on US soil is duly noted.

Forrest as a soldier:
The Institute for Military Studies concluded that the Battle of Brice's Crossroads (won by Forrest),
was perhaps the most spectacular display of tactical genius during warfare.

At Brices Crossroads Forrest captured 16 cannon, 1,500 stands of small arms, 300,000 rounds of
small arm ammunition, 16 ambulances, 176 wagons, 161 mules, 23 horses, and all of the
Federals' baggage and supplies. The Federal casualties included 223 killed, 394 wounded, and
1,623 missing, for a total of 2,240. The Confederates lost 96 killed and 396 wounded, for a total of 492.

Forrest was not a 21st Century man who believed in racial equality; he remained a man of his time,
Sharing the almost-universal view of white Europeans and Americans in the 19th Century that
Anglo-Saxons were superior to other peoples, but neither was Forrest a reactionary racist who sought
a return to slavery. Forrest worked to accept the end of slavery and the social changes resulting
from the war as indicated by his words to his men in his 1865 farewell address. A recent biographer
of Forrest says “The reality is that over the length of his lifetime Nathan Bedford Forrest's
racial attitudes probably developed more, and more in the direction of liberal enlightenment, than
those of most other Americans in the nation's history.”


it seems to me Forrest surely had better relationships with blacks he counteracted with than many of the union
generals had who participated in the war at the head of black soldiers. When his plantation was destroyed
by the Union soldiers many of those servants that use to work for him, came back free &
helped restore the damage.

Nickyjo said:

So the right track is hating immigrants, legal and illegal, demonizing Muslims, resentment of the media, and all the wonderful bigotry he preaches?

Click to expand...

While sticking with the democrats would've kept us on the right track of promoting far more open war, intentional drone strikes on innocents, the sexual exploitation of women & children, demonizing anyone who doesn't share their ideology, damning more to die in destitution and open promotions of violence & bigotry.

Or is it not fair to play by your rules on this exchange?

slick said:

I'm glad I'm not as utterly blinded by bias as you!

Your disdain for the greatest cavalry soldier horse or mechanized ever born on US soil is duly noted.

Forrest as a soldier:
The Institute for Military Studies concluded that the Battle of Brice's Crossroads (won by Forrest),
was perhaps the most spectacular display of tactical genius during warfare.

At Brices Crossroads Forrest captured 16 cannon, 1,500 stands of small arms, 300,000 rounds of
small arm ammunition, 16 ambulances, 176 wagons, 161 mules, 23 horses, and all of the
Federals' baggage and supplies. The Federal casualties included 223 killed, 394 wounded, and
1,623 missing, for a total of 2,240. The Confederates lost 96 killed and 396 wounded, for a total of 492.

Click to expand...

Utterly irrelevant considering the atrocities he committed and the domestic terror organization he created continued to commit for years. It’s the equivalent of fawning over the Waffen SS’ “battlefield achievements”— they simply don’t matter, because the perpetrators committed numerous atrocities

Forrest was a slave trader— a man who profited off the abuse of other human beings for a quick buck. The chances that he’d actually let walking dollar signs go, no matter what he claimed, is slim to none.

You’ve managed to totally flail your way off of the topic as well...unsurprisingly.

slick said:

The immigrants circa 1900 were all white, all European and almost all were Christian.
'After each wave of immigration there were long periods of little or no immigration
giving time for the Americans to assimilate the newcomers.
Their children passed through deeply patriotic schools where they were
immersed in the language, literature, history & traditions uniquely American.


Today however those schools have been converted to the point that American
history is often taught as a series of crimes against people of color Today’s
immigrants are rarely European, rarely Christian & rarely white.

++ Why do you see that as a problem?

Today's elites
who promote the flood of immigartion ignore the crucial elements that
made America work for over 200 years.

++ Yeah, we resented every new wave of immigrants. Look at the history of the Know-Nothings and the KKK. Somehow the bigots of yesteryear managed to resent the new white Christians, and of course Jews.

Concede the point!

Click to expand...

++ No, you proved my point. Stop panicking. Look up some of the anti-Irish political cartoons back in the day. They resemble stereotypes of Muslims of recent years.. Think, “Blazing Saddles,” and one of the great lines about racism, something like, “We’ll take the niggers and the Chinks, but we won’t take the Irish.” And you’re forgetting the huge numbers of Chinese, who helped build the railroads.

Tigerace117 said:

Utterly irrelevant considering the atrocities he committed and the domestic terror organization he created continued to commit for years. It’s the equivalent of fawning over the Waffen SS’ “battlefield achievements”— they simply don’t matter, because the perpetrators committed numerous atrocities

Forrest was a slave trader— a man who profited off the abuse of other human beings for a quick buck. The chances that he’d actually let walking dollar signs go, no matter what he claimed, is slim to none.

You’ve managed to totally flail your way off of the topic as well...unsurprisingly.

Click to expand...

On topic, The conservative party is in the hands of the most conservative president since
Eisenhower or perhaps Reagan. Now for the first time in decades has a real leader.

'Serious conservatives and most independents voted for Donald Trump “Trump cut taxes, appointed right leaning judges, presided over a
golden age of deregulation, showed more restraint with regard to the military adventurism embraced by recent Republicans, and took
a strong stand against the invasion at the Southern border. Why would conservatives vote against him?”

Try studying the total history of this country!
For 350 years after Jamestown the immigration laws of this country were written with one
goal, to preserve the European character of this country. Those ranting 'This is not who we are" today forget
that is what we were when America overtook Britain as the greatest economic & military power about a century ago.

Ever since the late 1970's the fortunes of this country have tended downward as it becomes a house divided.

If you really feel that way you're swimming upstream, that's a backbreaker. Ethnonationalism is not resurgent it never died.
It continues to be & nearly always has been the world in which we live in the most powerful movement.

IIt outlasted Marxism tearing apart the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova & the Caucusus followed suite
& then went the 5 nations of Central Asia. That was not the end only the beginning, minorities inside the new nations wanted their
place in the sun & the Caucasus became the 20th century Balkans. This is just the primary example of many other breakups throughout
the world demonstrating the pull of ethnonationalism.

'Always it's Sameness that dominates! People favor friendships with those of similar backgrounds, interests & values. Despite a few exceptions
the urge is almost universal, it's human nature!' Czechoslavakia, the Soviet Union & Yugoslavia were held together by a police state
when the police state disintegrated new nationalistic nations were formed.

Oborosen said:

While sticking with the democrats would've kept us on the right track of promoting far more open war, intentional drone strikes on innocents, the sexual exploitation of women & children, demonizing anyone who doesn't share their ideology, damning more to die in destitution and open promotions of violence & bigotry.

Or is it not fair to play by your rules on this exchange?

Click to expand...

I must have missed it. When did democrats attack Muslims and suggest banning an entire religion, compare all immigrants to poisonous snakes, call Mexican migrants rapists, long for the days when hecklers were taken out on stretchers, suggest torture worse than waterboarding, and suggest war crimes or pardon war criminals as Trump has?

I am with you on the drone strikes, however.

Blue Donkey said:

This is a literal and isolated question. If all you care about is opposing the Democratic Party and supporting whoever the Republican nominee would have been, this thread is not for you. That is not liking Trump himself, just liking what he is not. I want to know why people who like Trump himself, based only on what he says and does, not any lies the conservative media tells.

Click to expand...

It is misdirected question. When anyone recognizes Trump's election was not his to win, but Hilary's to lose, we begin to see the real issue is the failures of the democrats to maintain their base in the working class, swing too far to the left, and grabbing onto every extreme policy which sways from the moderate base. On the local levels the democrats have proved themselves corrupt and disconnected from their constituencies. Telling then what they want rather than responding to what they want. Claiming moral superiority while many democrats were caught red handed, tried, convicted and sentenced to prison while tying racism and bigotry to justice for criminal behavior is a mockery of the desires of the moderate middle class. Worry jobs away because investment doesn't guarantee minority address when many are hanging on by their fingernails, has created a loss of confidence. The inability to field candidates without the same old empty promises and who are charismatic is a gift to the republicans.

Having a candidate like Sanders, an ardent socialist and communist with a record of failure and rhetoric, who was never a member of the democratic party, was an insult. Having a worn out back room old time party machine politician who fumbles continually as the likely presidential candidate is another insult and without any inspiration. It is not that Trump is liked, loved or respected. It is that the democrats are mired in failure for all the wrong reasons. It has become a party of whiners, not creative solutions. It has become a party more concerned with candidates who take care of their own at the expense of the people. It has become the party of high taxes. It has become a party which threatens the well being of honest law abiding citizens with its policies of bail reforms to resolve minority criminals dominance in the prison system. It has become a party of control of personal behavior rather than one of guaranteeing freedoms of choice. It has become a party of pandering.

It is not a question of who or what Trump is perceived to be. It is a question of the failures, and continual failures of the democratic party to provide clear and quality leadership that Americans can respect and coalesce with for the future. The vision of the democrats it once had for doing for the real benefit of people is not there.

Life is cruel, life is a struggle, life is unfair. Whining accomplishes nothing. And you cannot cry corruption and expect it not to fall on deaf ears when you yourself is corrupt. Reformers in this nation have proved themselves their own worst enemies. As worthless and corrupt as those they accuse, rightly or not. This is a nation of people who define themselves by what they do, not by what they say will do and do not.

Nickyjo said:

++ No, you proved my point. Stop panicking. Look up some of the anti-Irish political cartoons back in the day. They resemble stereotypes of Muslims of recent years.. Think, “Blazing Saddles,” and one of the great lines about racism, something like, “We’ll take the niggers and the Chinks, but we won’t take the Irish.” And you’re forgetting the huge numbers of Chinese, who helped build the railroads.

Click to expand...

I don't want to rain on your parade, think what you desire but recall that the Irish had more signers to the founding documents
than all nationalities other than the British. All things considered the Irish had it better than other johnny-come-lately immigrants
from southern & eastern Europe they were among the founding fathers. Although I concede the catholic Irish that came in the 1850's did
face hardships.

slick said:

On topic, The conservative party is in the hands of the most conservative president since
Eisenhower or perhaps Reagan. Now for the first time in decades has a real leader.

'Serious conservatives and most independents voted for Donald Trump “Trump cut taxes, appointed right leaning judges, presided over a
golden age of deregulation, showed more restraint with regard to the military adventurism embraced by recent Republicans, and took
a strong stand against the invasion at the Southern border. Why would conservatives vote against him?”

Try studying the total history of this country!
For 350 years after Jamestown the immigration laws of this country were written with one
goal, to preserve the European character of this country. Those ranting 'This is not who we are" today forget
that is what we were when America overtook Britain as the greatest economic & military power about a century ago.

Ever since the late 1970's the fortunes of this country have tended downward as it becomes a house divided.

If you really feel that way you're swimming upstream, that's a backbreaker. Ethnonationalism is not resurgent it never died.
It continues to be & nearly always has been the world in which we live in the most powerful movement.

IIt outlasted Marxism tearing apart the USSR. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova & the Caucusus followed suite
& then went the 5 nations of Central Asia. That was not the end only the beginning, minorities inside the new nations wanted their
place in the sun & the Caucasus became the 20th century Balkans. This is just the primary example of many other breakups throughout
the world demonstrating the pull of ethnonationalism.

'Always it's Sameness that dominates! People favor friendships with those of similar backgrounds, interests & values. Despite a few exceptions
the urge is almost universal, it's human nature!' Czechoslavakia, the Soviet Union & Yugoslavia were held together by a police state
when the police state disintegrated new nationalistic nations were formed.

Click to expand...

There is no “invasion at the southern border”; that is hysterical nonsense. Especially considering that the northern border with Canada is far more unguarded, the idea that the hysterics over the southern border are a “national security issue” is silly.

Independents have no reason to care about “right leaning judges”.

Abandoning the Kurds is not “showing restraint from military adventurism”. Kissing the ass of various dictators is not “showing restraint” either.

The rest of your post has just as many problems, but those stand out.

The Balkans’s ethnonationalism has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the years, from World War One to the Ustase’s crimes to Srebrencia and the like. Nobody should want to be “like the Balkans”....and indeed, all it’s caused is a frozen war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a shattered Georgia, and a never ending insurgency in Turkey.

When America “overtook Britain as the leading power” we were a country which denied huge numbers of people their constitutional rights; which used hysteria and bigotry as an excuse to imprison large numbers of innocent people; which treated literal Nazi POWs better than African American soldiers fighting for the Allies. The America of the 1940s and 1950s was a deeply flawed place, and it’s good that it’s never coming back.

Japan was one of the most ethno-nationalistic and culturally homogenous nations around in the 1930s and 1940s.

It then committed some of the worst atrocities seen in human history, mass murdering millions of innocents, and had to be nuked to stop them.

That’s what ethno-nationalism gets you.

Tigerace117 said:

There is no “invasion at the southern border”; that is hysterical nonsense. Especially considering that the northern border with Canada is far more unguarded, the idea that the hysterics over the southern border are a “national security issue” is silly.

Independents have no reason to care about “right leaning judges”.

Abandoning the Kurds is not “showing restraint from military adventurism”. Kissing the ass of various dictators is not “showing restraint” either.

The rest of your post has just as many problems, but those stand out.

The Balkans’s ethnonationalism has been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people over the years, from World War One to the Ustase’s crimes to Srebrencia and the like. Nobody should want to be “like the Balkans”....and indeed, all it’s caused is a frozen war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a shattered Georgia, and a never ending insurgency in Turkey.

When America “overtook Britain as the leading power” we were a country which denied huge numbers of people their constitutional rights; which used hysteria and bigotry as an excuse to imprison large numbers of innocent people; which treated literal Nazi POWs better than African American soldiers fighting for the Allies. The America of the 1940s and 1950s was a deeply flawed place, and it’s good that it’s never coming back.

Japan was one of the most ethno-nationalistic and culturally homogenous nations around in the 1930s and 1940s.

It then committed some of the worst atrocities seen in human history, mass murdering millions of innocents, and had to be nuked to stop them.

That’s what ethno-nationalism gets you.

Click to expand...

As usual your haven't been listening. I don't see why anyone would ever expect me to back off from the truth.
Your mind is crippled by bias & hatred, no responsible lawyer
would ever include you in a jury to judge these matters.
You have the lowest value to post ratio of anyone alive ? Nobody is even in the same realm!

slick said:

As usual your haven't been listening. I don't see why anyone would ever expect me to back off from the truth.
Your mind is crippled by bias & hatred, no responsible lawyer
would ever include you in a jury to judge these matters.
You have the lowest value to post ratio of anyone alive ? Nobody is even in the same realm!

Click to expand...

And now you are throwing a tantrum because you aren’t able to actually debunk any of what I stated....as usual.

Are you denying the atrocities Japan committed? Are you denying that the Balkans have been a powderkeg for a century-plus due to ethno-nationalism?