politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
Source:
Personal Liberty
URL Source: http://personalliberty.com/will-a-t ... hange-anything-for-the-better/
Published: Mar 15, 2016
Author: Brandon Smith
Post Date: 2016-05-06 08:57:21 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 18393
Comments: 107
I want to start this analysis by stating that I fully understand the whirlwind of public interest in Donald Trump’s campaign. However, for those that don’t get it, let me break it down for you. A considerable portion of the American population considers themselves “conservative.” More than 38 percent of U.S. citizens, according to Gallup, hold conservative political and social views. Only 24 percent of the public considers themselves “liberal.” Now, I realize that the term “conservative” means different things to different people, so I would apply a simple rule to categorize them — a conservative is easiest to identify by his or her distaste for normally liberal ideological views. Beyond that, different factions of conservatives disagree on a whole host of issues. The goal of any conservative candidate that hopes to be publicly “popular,” whether he actually intends to follow through with his promises or not, is to appear to be all things to all factions; to avoid alienating one faction to appease another. After he is elected (or, after he is placed in the oval office by the powers that be), he may abandon any care for appeasing any of his constituents. Until then, he plays the game so that Americans can maintain faith in the system for at least one moment every four years. Trump’s popularity is predicated on the fact that past Republican candidates have done little to make friends with true conservatives and have not sought alliances with the factions of conservatism that have been growing in momentum and power the past two decades. In fact, the Republican candidates presented to the citizenry in recent memory have all had characteristics more akin to liberal Democrats than conservative stalwarts. Mitt Romney, for instance, was essentially a carbon copy of Barack Obama in terms of political policy and voting record, with only slightly greasier complexion and equally mysterious religious background. Election after election, conservative Americans have been offered one RINO (Republican In Name Only) candidate after another: politicians whose rhetoric sounds principled but whose record is littered with big government policies, constitutional violations, and a disregard for the intentions of the founding fathers. You cannot call yourself a “conservative” in America unless you respect the tenets of limited government, constitutional law, and a regard for the heritage of our founding principles. U.S. conservatives have not had a candidate sharing their views for a long time. Democrats may finally be experiencing a similar disenchantment with establishment candidates considering the surprising popularity of Bernie Sanders this election. The problem is, democrats are trapped in the big government mindset and are for the most part a lost cause. Their anti-establishment candidate is a self-categorized socialist, after all. The only hope for a constitutional small government candidate and a return our founding principles in politics rests in the hands of Republicans, being that third parties are quashed before they get a chance to put their foot in the door. So, you have most if not all Democratic candidates working for bigger more powerful government which leads to increased corruption and less liberty. You also have most Republicans working for bigger and more powerful government and less liberty. And you have few, if any, candidates that represent the majority of voters seeking limited constitutional government. Those of us in the liberty movement call this the “false left/right paradigm. It is the most insidious form of social control present in our nation and it makes a mockery of the election process. That is to say, elections are now nothing more than a way for international financiers and elites to keep the masses in line by allowing them to believe (falsely) that they have a “choice” and thus power to determine the future of our country. In fact, our choice is contrived and we have no political power whatsoever. The rest of America is finally starting to become aware of the false paradigm that liberty proponents have been warning about for generations. Is it any wonder that people are becoming fed up with the system? The genius of Donald Trump as an election figure is that he has little to no political history. He does not have an extensive legislative or voting record that we can look back on and determine where he stands. His political affiliations have been all over the place with him identifying as a Democrat at one time, Republican at other times, and even independent. Most of us cannot really judge his potential based on this. Hell, I was a registered Democrat early in my life, so how can I hold it against Trump? Beyond Trump’s rather disturbing past affiliation and friendship with the Clintons, he is otherwise a blank political slate. And as a blank slate, Trump can in fact present himself as all things to all people. The other ingenious aspect of the Trump campaign is really who he is running against — Hillary Clinton, a liberal candidate even more hated than Barack Obama. A candidate with a potentially serious criminal record and a penchant for an outright communistic world view. Those of us who have been in the writing field for a long time and have dabbled in fiction know that in order to create a fantastic hero, you must first put even more work into creating a fantastic villain. The hero is nothing without the villain. The outright horror inherent in the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency is like adding jet fuel to the Trump campaign. Donald Trump appears to be the perfect antithesis to Hillary Clinton. He is loud and boisterous and a bit obnoxious. He trash talks and says whatever he wants to the torment of liberals. He stomps on the throats of the political correctness police and doesn’t care if they call him a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. And, Americans love it. They can’t get enough of it. Conservatives are so tired of cultural Marxism, leftist domination of media, forced immigration policies and the protection of illegal immigration, paying for social entitlement programs, etc., that they are ready to explode. They are, in fact, ready to go to war. I would even dare to say that a Clinton presidency would lead directly to guaranteed outright civil war. This is not an exaggeration. So, the real question is, is Trump a reflection of the frustration and defiance of the conservative population, or, is he a clever ruse by the establishment to co-opt and placate the conservative population before we rebel? Again, without much political background to examine, Trump is a mystery. If Trump is a legitimate anti-establishment candidate, then here are some of the actions he would have to pursue in order to prove it: I’m sure that readers can think of many other potential actions that would help to prove beyond a doubt that Donald Trump is the kind of anti-establishment firebrand he presents himself to be. If Trump does take such measures during his presidency, then he may be a president worth supporting, or even fighting for. If he pursues few or none of these measures, however, we can be relatively certain he is just another establishment puppet playing his part in the false left/right paradigm leading America toward oblivion. Whatever Trump is, his popularity does indicate a rising tide of discontent within the U.S. The insane circus atmosphere of election 2016 is no coincidence; it is a perfect representation of the overflowing tensions that permeate our culture and are leading to potential earth shattering conflict. Keep in mind that America’s economic situation was already decided back in 2008 and will only become worse as we move into the election season. Whatever tensions we see now will only multiply as financial crisis becomes more apparent to the masses. The idea that a Trump presidency will change much of anything is a rather farfetched one in my view. Trump’s popularity only suggests that people are seeking alternatives. The damage to America has for the most part already been done, and there will be no avoiding the consequences. That said, how we rebuild can still be determined. No political leader including Trump will ever be able to heal the American system or the American psyche, but the efforts of millions of independent and liberty minded Americans can. We have a long and terrible struggle ahead of us, but to look at it from an “optimistic” perspective, at least Americans are becoming sick of the status quo. That is a start. — Brandon Smith
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: buckeroo, Pinocchio Trump (#14)
Mr. Dornaldo Truump is the 2016 version of Hope & Change, via the Straight Talk Unicorn Express, powered by magic pixie dust. When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are.... If it pisses you off, YES I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
The law to build the wall is in place, and portions of it can be built without full funding, as "projects" for local agencies. Example: Military training in fortification and Seabee work and Corps of Engineers work can build portions of the wall. Current maintenance money on the fencline can be spent to "replace damaged fencing" with the wall. Congress allocates money under broad categories. Executives can, and do, find the money at the margins. The construction can start that way, using already appropriated monies cleverly. Congress is then out into the position of having to specifically OUTLAW those uses, which would require affimrative legislation to pass that the border fence cannot even be maintained. Trump can get the wall built piecemeal by aggressively using the margins of the budget. Example: drug mule impoundment - local enforcement gets to keep what is found jointly, if a portion of the money goes to a local effort to build the wall. Congress can't STOP the wall from being build. For that matter, it could be put up by volunteer corps. The feds would simply have to not interfere, and THAT is COMPLETELY within the power of the President. If Trump is determined to get his wall, he will get his wall.
Exectuive agencies have discretion as to how they spend their internal budgets. There are so many agencies, and so many reasons to build a piece here, a piece there. The money can be found, at the cost of other things, even if Congress won't directly appropriate the money. Reagan found the money to bring down the Sandinistas, despite Congress having outlawed it.
Will Hillary be a little worse or a lot worse is the question that needs to be ask! To answer she would be much worse than Trump. Trump's redeeming value is he is not a global elite nor a socialist and wants to undo elites controls. He is an America first person which is his best quality. Yes he is a control freak and a narcissist. He has a socialist leaning due to being raised in the northeast but I think fighting the socialist/communist has left a bad taste of socialism in him. To me Trump represent the crashing of the global elite controls over America which is what we all want in the end is it not? It's a start.
Look It would be a great nation building project, the unemployed could be rounded up and required to spend time working on the wall, however Mexican cartells have been found to be adept at tunnelling so as teh Israeli foind in Sinai you have to do more than build a wall, you have to project the barrier downwards, surely it would ebe simplier to build a canal
Look, it's not REALLY a question of building a wall. The wall is just the great symbolic statement. The Great Wall of China did not STOP invasions - it slowed them down, channelled them and made them more difficult. The Wall is part of a comprehensive package of changes that signal to both sides of the border that things have CHANGED, and that what was treated with indulgence before will now become much more difficult,. much more dangerous, and much more punitive. The Israeli wall did not STOP terrorist attacks, but it VASTLY reduced them. Perfection is not the goal of realistic people. The Wall probably doesn't even have to be completely finished to start having effects, as long as the rest of the package comes with it. The key part of package north of the Border is to treat Americans who hire illegals after a certain date as criminals. Before that date, you can give people amnesty and a pass, but after a certain date, a date to allow transiitions, then the Americans who hire illegals in their businesses should start having crippling penalties. Essentially, the first ones caught should be broken, driven out of business, to send a signal that violation of the immigration laws is a felony, and death sentence to the businesses that are caught doing it. You fine them HEAVILY. And you cease to turn a blind eye. You focus on the industries that use illegals too. You have to frighten Americans who make the calculation right now to risk hiring that the risk is not worth it. And when you catch them, you have to take back ALL of the illegal profot they made- the whole advantage they gained by hiring illegals, and then hit them with triple punitive damages. The purpose is to destroy them, a few, very publicly, so the rest are frightened into stopping it. That will cause business to stop doing it. Shut off the jobs, and you shut off the draw of the illegals. The Wall becomes less necessary. But it's still necessary to start the Wall and make steady progress, because that is what the people want. It is very important that the people who have demanded a Wall for years GET their wall, and those Americans who blocked them and derided them see the wall go up too. It is very important that the Wall people visibly see their victory over the anti-Wall people, and the anti-Wall people also see their defeat. The symbolism is important. And as the other means drive down the illegal numbers and effect self-deportation, the Wall people will have their victory and be able to proclaim it. People who stood for national sovereignty for a long time have had their teeth kicked in. It is very important symbolically and politically that they have the visible symbol of their victory, AND that the totality of the means taken to cut illegal immigration be seen to be successful. That discourages the people who stood against it, and empowers those who put up with the abuse for so many years. We saw it with Reagan. Reaganites took a LOT of arrows, shots and ridiicule. Reagan had to be SHOT for the narrative against him to cool down. But his success ended up silencing most of the critics, and the people who fought it out have the satisfaction of seeing people who were their opponents, cave and start supporting what they used to fight. That's important for maintaining the momentum of a political movement - that the enemy be SEEN to be defeated, and to KNOW they have been defeated, because defeat discourages many people, and they leave the weaker horse behind. Reagan was not popular in 1981. But he sure was in 1985. And that's because people who used to fight, changed sides. People back the stronger horse. Trump said he is going to build a Wall. It is IMPERATIVE, then, that he build that Wall - EVEN IF it doesn't do all that is expected. It will be part of an overall package, nobody will ever be able to say for certain that it was all of the other stuff that turned the illegal tide. The people who have fought this all along, hard, have won, they want that wall, and they must be given their victory, or Trump will be a failed one turn President as the core of his base turns on him as a liar. Trump has no maneuvering room on the Wall. He is the Republican nominee BECAUSE of that promise. If he doesn't build it, he'll be branded as a liar by everybody who supports him, and he will leave the White House after his first term as a disgraced and hated man. The Wall must be built.
an impassioned piece. I thought the NAFTA was an attempt to keep the illegals below the border by giving them employment, a sort of financial wall, the strategy obviously didn't work, but had all those factories that were built in China have been built in Mexico it might have. I think the solution is simplier than building a wall, you have to change the status of illegals so that not only is it a crime for them to employ them, it is a crime for them to be employed in a much more stringent way than non possession of a green card. America doesn't really have a boat problem at the moment but it might if the wall is built. perhaps it would be easier to build the wall further south in Mexico to close off the route from central america, that could even achieve a boost for the war on drugs. The whole range of border enforcement measures
As for myself, I don't personally believe in the Wall. Nor do I think that the answer is immigration restrictions. I think that Mexico is our neighbor, and Canada is our neighbor. I think that the proper answer is that all of this free trade that seeks to get the lowest price, should be aimed at Mexico. We should not have free trade of the sort that offshores jobs to China or Vietnam or anywhere BUT Mexico. Our objective should be to build up Mexico to the same status as the United States and then eventually merge the two countries. They're merging anyway, but the wrong way: rounding down. That's what I think. And then we should be looking further South. I think our long-term goal should be to have one borderless country from Tierra de Fuego to the Arctic Ocean. This will take 1000 years, but we would all be better for it. My countrymen are nowhere near this. As it stands, our capitalists are out of control, and seeking profit for themselves at the expense of the future of the country. So we're getting a cultural merger, by invasion, as opposed to an eventual merger by building up our poorer neighbor. Trump and border control are better than turning the US into Mexico. Best of all would be to turn Mexico into the USA.
What makes you think that's doable except a blind faith in the belief that all people are intrinsically the same? You kid yourself in you're wanting to be nice. If a race of people hasn't done anything to advance themselves in 4,000 years, you won't advance them. They're evolutionary throw-backs and genetic inferiors.
A form of one world government, Yes continential government can work, it has been proven in Australia, but you still have the issue of dealing with the poor, the indigenous and a complexity of environmental issues you cannot begin to imagine. A comment, americans have proven particularly poor at understanding the circumstances of others particularly when it comes to differing economic circumstances, this is why national governments or regional governments are important. the problems of the snow bound north are different to the tropical south. One size fits all is bad policy
Australia is a glorified island with problems with immigrant islam. Open the place to more immigrant islam and see how well it works.
Firstly Australia is the size of the continental US. North america is a glorified island too. may I suggest you go first. We don't have a serious problem with immigrant Islam, we have a problem that islam is reaching a critical mass, something that hasn't happened in the US yet. We don't want more islamic immigrants, to have allowed islamic immigration in the first place was a mistake but we learned the hard way that islamics don't integrate, don't assimulate and form enclaves. Yes we have had some terrorists events but in reality no more than america has. we are extremely vigilant and have stoped a number of attempts to conduct terrorist activities and our strict gun laws mean they have less opportunity to acquire automatic weapons and thus any instances have resulted in a lower body count. the last event resulted in the death of one victim and the terrorist shot dead
They were a highly advanced civilization, in Central Mexico and in the Andes, when the Spanish came. There was no racial inferiority. It was a lack of resistance to smallpox. Genetic inferiors and evolutionary throwbacks? I always considered Nazi theory to be boneheaded, and Catholic theory to be superior. My mind has not changed on that matter. I also see the white race dying out due to its own weaknesses, which are also not genetic but moral choices that don't work out.
Will the Paultards really stop crying or making excuses for their SIX PERCENT loser popularity? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Americans have been poor at empathy for other races, that is true, but we have been spectacularly successful and causing different tribes of warring Europeans, who have still not completely figured it out at home, to lose their ethnic identities and become one people in a generation. And we've managed to integrate Asians and Latinos into the mix also. We've done poorly with blacks, but we're getting better at it. the missing component was the Catholic universalist religious theology to sit atop the E Pluribus Unum national mentality. But that's changing...with immigration! The Democrats here are the worst because they are secular socialists who really want to wipe out God. And societies that cut themselves off from God effectively cut themselves off at the root and turn into brutal places, or they wither. The Republicans understand the need to preserve the culture and the economy: America is not big enough or rich enough to take in the whole world. But there are also Republicans who hold Nazi racial theories, who think of other races as genetically inferior - all of the German nonsense of the 20th Century and the black-white nonsense of the American 19th and 20th. Those folks also vote Republican for Border Control, but with very different motivations. The balancing act is to control the borders to save the economy and jobs, without conceding the moral cultural to the racialists. We do not have a track record of success at that. In general we've only been able to beat the racialists by force (in Germany, and in America), and the problem with that is that then we strip away our ability to argue reasonably for immigration controls to save the economy and the culture - not because ours is racially superior, but simply because ours is ours and it isn't big enough to take everybody else in. Fix us, and focus our trade efforts at our nextdoor neighbor, and we can fix us and go a long way towards fixing them, and then there's a shot that common Christianity will allow us to integrate much better. Europe managed it...but that took an American conquest.
Then YOU pay for all the illegal shitbag expenses... don't expect my wallet to be as sympathetic as your bleeding heart is. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Don't worry your pretty head. There is no danger of America going down the path I would like to see. I'll be content to see Trump get back in command of the situation, without handing the country over to the Neo-Confederates.
Meet the new boss - same as the old boss. Trump Picks Former Goldman Partner And Soros Employee As Finance Chairman Did Donald Trump Just Go Full Establishment? After digging a little deeper, it turns out Mnuchin has an even more surprising former employer: none other than democratic political financier, billionaire, and Hillary Clinton donor George Soros. “In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.” Making matters even worse, it turns out that Mnuchin profited handsomely from the 2009 Wall Street bailouts. According to Mother Jones, after buying the bailed out IndyMac Bank for pennies on the dollar, “Mnuchin and his partners, who named their new bank OneWest, ended up doing spectacularly well. They parlayed their $1.55 billion investment into a $3.4 billion payday.” He was able to do this because taxpayers took on all the risks of the bank’s bad assets, costing taxpayers an estimated $13 billion in losses. All the while, the bank continued to foreclose on homeowners who were no longer able to make mortgage payments. These developments come only a few days after Trump’s former opponents, Ted Cruz and John Kasich, dropped out of the race — all but guaranteeing Donald the nomination. Trump also recently announced he will forgo the “self-funding” he has relied on so far in the primary, promising to raise $1 billion from supporters in conjunction with the Republican party in preparation for the general election. Further, Trump has begun to surround himself with neocon Republican establishment icons. As Dan Sanchez explains: “Trump’s circle now includes such mainstream warmongers as Rudolph Giuliani, Chris Christie, Richard Haass (current president of the Council on Foreign Relations), and Senator Jeff Sessions. Trump has even identified John Bolton, an Iraq War architect and close ally of the neocons, as a ‘go to’ expert for advice on national security.” It appears Donald Trump’s days as an anti-establishment outsider have come to a close now that he’s gearing up for the general election (most likely) against Hillary Clinton — another politician with ties to Goldman Sachs. It appears that regardless of who winds up winning the presidency in 2016, Goldman Sachs will remain the unbeatable incumbent. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much Shut your OWS pie hole. Oh... and stick your Black Lives Matter billshit up your Jane Fonda ass too. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
How much did they accomplish in testimony to that assertion?
More than the Egyptians. Great cities, great irrigation, a rich variety of crops, a paved highway system 1000 miles long in the Andes, pyramids.
More than the Egyptians. Great cities, great irrigation, a rich variety of crops, a paved highway system 1000 miles long in the Andes, pyramids. Good heavens, a bustling metropolis from the middle of Mexico Southward. Complete with pyramids. Who'd have thunk it without having you to describe it for them?
Oh... and stick your Black Lives Matter billshit up your Jane Fonda ass too. He isn't OWS or Black lives matter. You two have more in common then you think. In my opinion.
No. Three separate empires, all hydraulic and urban: Inca, Mayan and Aztec. They were destroyed by smallpox.
But seriously, why go here? The White Race is dying out. Contraception, abortion, the loss of reason and faith, are killing it. It has to die out if it won't stop contracepting itself to oblivion. White Americans are not going to be able to wall off an empty shell of a country full of octogenarians. The culture must change.
No it isn't.
Yes it is. Look at the fertility rates of whites in every country in the world. Well below replacement. The race is dying out, and nature abhors a vacuum.
No it isn't. That's nonsense. When are you predicting the white race will disappear?
It won't disappear completely. It will be the minority in Europe by 2060. It will be the minority in North America by 2100. Unless we stop contracepting away our future.
Secondly, it has a population of 24 Million or about 7.5% of the U.S. population of 320 Million. About 90% of its land mass is termed uninhabitable.
Only by those who don't live there, people live all over this continent as they have done for 50,000 years, but most prefer to live in larger population centres. The reason for this is the availablility of surface water. Your continent has been inhabited by europeans for five hundred years, ours for two hundred, in that time we have built the 16th largest economy in the world, imagine what we would have if we had your population. Never look down on something because it is smaller than you
It cannot support any appreciable population density. It is a desert. That would be starvation on a massive scale. The land will not support such a population. I do not look down on Australia. It is just a fact that it cannot be compared to the U.S. in terms of population, or the inherent ability to support a large population.
Maybe that's because without the availability of surface water, it is impossible to sustain life? The US west often has serious water problems because it is just too dry too support the population it has. They have found ways to divert water to support the population, but it is a never ending problem. The Australian desert is in the center of the damn country. There is no water to divert -- no major rivers like the Colorado. People who live in the Austalian desert are struggling to live every day. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
One wonders why folks like these around the globe choose, save for harsh religious reasons, to stay put for generations instead of heading for greener pastures (pun intended). It seems almost a given that if you find yourself and your kids living somewhere where water, food, the basic necessities of life are in short, if not desperate, supply you would move to someplace more accommodating. Obviously I didn't get the memo explaining why people like these don't. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You can live, but you have to be accustomed to living a nomadic lifestyle. You have to be willing to live that kind of life, and be willing to have no roots at all. You certainly can't build a city and sit back and watch cable TV every day in these kinds of conditions. If this is the only existence you have ever known, then that is the way you live. These days, there are few people like that. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
If that were true the Indians will still be the only folks in North America and certainly no-one would be driving, much less flying, and, medical practitioners would still be using leeches and bleeding folks or even voodoo. There is more to the answer that what you expressed. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That would be starvation on a massive scale. The land will not support such a population. Only certain parts of it are desert, we are not talking about the Sahara. There are three main deserts aside from that there is habitation and the country supports millions of sheep and cattle and a million camels and horses. 2/3 of the land is given over to agriculture. If we were to turn the northern rivers inland it would be as furtile as america. As to starvation, we merely have to turn exports to internal consumption The land is furtile and we grow wheat crops on six inches of rain. Your words show only superficial understanding and a great deal of misinformation, we export large quantities of food to the world, our cattle herd supplies meat to Indonesia a large country, as well as many others. Our cattle herd is about a 1/3 of that in the US This might give you great understanding and dispell the myths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia http://www.australia.gov.au/about- australia/australian-story/austn-farming-and- agriculture
The white man built dams, built irrigation canals, and designed reservoirs and made an arid region livable. The injuns just hunted and gathered and moved around and scalped each other. Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
few people live in the Australian desert, there are large rivers in the north that could be diverted but the arid lands is no more than 1/3 of the land. People think of a desert as a place where nothing grows, this is not typical of Australia. You should think of this continent as like a doughnut. People live in arid conditions all over the world, those who live with abundant water think of that as the norm but actually it isn't, some are blessed with vast rivers and lakes but most are not. You look at this continent and you don't see surface water, but many rivers flow underground through alluvial sands. The amount of water people actually need is small, most water is used in agriculture and industry and is wasted
The white man built dams, built irrigation canals, and designed reservoirs and made an arid region livable. The injuns just hunted and gathered and moved around and scalped each other. This is totally non-responsive to my post. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Comments (56 - 107) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#16. To: Deckard (#0)
Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
#17. To: buckeroo (#14)
#18. To: paraclete (#13)
Yes a wall can be built but the funds have to come from somewhere,
#19. To: Deckard (#0)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
(Edited)
If Trump is determined to get his wall, he will get his wall.
#21. To: paraclete (#20)
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
The Wall must be built.
#23. To: paraclete (#22)
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
(Edited)
Our objective should be to build up Mexico to the same status as the United States
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
(Edited)
I think our long-term goal should be to have one borderless country from Tierra de Fuego to the Arctic Ocean.
#26. To: paraclete (#25)
Yes continential government can work, it has been proven in Australia
#27. To: rlk (#26)
(Edited)
Australia is a glorified island with problems with immigrant islam. Open the place to more immigrant islam and see how well it works.
#28. To: rlk (#24)
If a race of people hasn't done anything to advance themselves in 4,000 years, you won't advance them. They're evolutionary throw-backs and genetic inferiors.
#29. To: Deckard (#0)
Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
#30. To: paraclete (#25)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
As for myself, I don't personally believe in the Wall. Nor do I think that the answer is immigration restrictions.
#32. To: GrandIsland (#31)
Then YOU pay for all the illegal shitbag expenses... don't expect my wallet to be as sympathetic as your bleeding heart is.
#33. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Will a Trump presidency really change anything for the better?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#34. To: Deckard (#33)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#28)
They were a highly advanced civilization
#36. To: rlk (#35)
How much did they accomplish in testimony to that assertion?
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
How much did they accomplish in testimony to that assertion?
#38. To: GrandIsland (#34)
Shut your OWS pie hole.
#39. To: rlk (#37)
Good heavens, a bustling metropolis from the middle of Mexico Southward. Complete with pyramids. Who'd have thunk it without having you to describe it for them?
#40. To: rlk (#37)
#41. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
But seriously, why go here? The White Race is dying out.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41)
No it isn't.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
Yes it is.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#43)
When are you predicting the white race will disappear?
#45. To: paraclete, rlk (#27)
Firstly Australia is the size of the continental US.
#46. To: nolu chan (#45)
About 90% of its land mass is termed uninhabitable.
#47. To: paraclete (#46)
Only by those who don't live there, people live all over this continent as they have done for 50,000 years, but most prefer to live in larger population centres.
imagine what we would have if we had your population.
#48. To: paraclete (#46)
but most prefer to live in larger population centres. The reason for this is the availablility of surface water.
#49. To: no gnu taxes, paraclete (#48)
There is no water to divert -- no major rivers like the Colorado. People who live in the Australian desert are struggling to live every day.
#50. To: SOSO (#49)
One wonders why folks like these around the globe choose, save for harsh religious reasons, to stay put for generations instead of heading for greener pastures (pun intended).
#51. To: no gnu taxes (#50)
If this is the only existence you have ever known, then that is the way you live.
#52. To: nolu chan (#47)
(Edited)
It cannot support any appreciable population density. It is a desert.
#53. To: SOSO (#51)
If that were true the Indians will still be the only folks in North America
#54. To: SOSO (#49)
There is no water to divert -- no major rivers like the Colorado. People who live in the Australian desert are struggling to live every day.
#55. To: no gnu taxes (#53)
If that were true the Indians will still be the only folks in North America
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]