Summations Only

I would put a caveat on that. From my perspective, a white nationalist is someone who not only wants the country to be governed by whites, but by a particular brand of whites. Namely, those of specific European ancestry and usually of specific religious affiliations.I can tell you that as someone who is of Greek heritage, despite the fact that I am technically classified as 'white', I had to deal with some share of discrimination by quote-unquote Anglo-Saxon type whites when I was growing up. Mainly because of my slightly darker complexion but also by my Greek Orthodox religious background. Individuals in my home town who were of Portuguese decent (we had a large Portuguese population in my part of Canada) were equally on the receiving end of jokes and slurs.This also extends to white nationalist's dislike of Jews. While many have Arabic roots, a large number are also of European heritage. But nonetheless, white nationalists pay little attention to that distinction.In the end, I've always said the following about fanatical redneck white nationalists: they love to be racist. But the only races they can tell apart are Indianapolis and Daytona.

I'd like to add a sixth one to the list:6. The actions of the DNC working behind the scenes to railroad Bernie Sander's campaign caused a schism within the Democratic party that lost them key votes, especially among younger votersIn my opinion, this is not talked about enough as it should be. The email hacks revealed a DNC that was perfectly willing to undermine the democratic process in order to facilitate the nomination of Hillary Clinton. If one wants to talk about things that are 'deplorable', that is about as deplorable as it gets. The fixation on Hillary as the anointed 'chosen one' coupled with the idiotic (and undemocratic) super-delegate system basically made it obvious to left-leaning voters that the system was rigged and that their opinions didn't matter.What made matters worse was after Bernie lost the nomination, the Clinton campaign did little to woo Sander's supporters to their side. In fact, they did the worst possible thing and started playing the sexism card, calling Sander's supporters 'Bernie Bros'. Clinton even used this term herself in her recent book.I am no political expert, but I have a set of eyes and I could easily see in my own state of Florida how much Bernie had energized the youth vote. And this was completely lost due to the complacency, and quite frankly, arrogance and stupidity of the Hillary campaign staffers and Hillary herself.In my humble opinion, the aforementioned could have been mitigated if Hillary had just swallowed her pride and chosen Bernie as her VP pick. I am pretty confident that if that happened, it would have been enough to swing the electoral votes in the rust belt states in her favor. And she would be president right.So I concur with RAZD on this one. Hillary lost and the main person to blame for that loss is Hillary herself. This was her election to lose. Not Trump's to win. And she blew it.

An interesting side-bar regarding the election itself: I have read from other folks who know Trump and the behind-the-scenes of the presidential campaign and many have them confirm what the book says that Trump never expected to win. And when it occurred, it was a total shock. Even South Park has spoofed that very notion.I always thought this was little more than a glorified publicity stunt. But being that Trump's ego is so big, I am guessing even after he realized he was going to be president, he immediately shifted gears and starting convincing himself that was all part of the plan. People like Trump often can't accept errors in judgement so they will gravitate towards narratives that was always affirm that they were 'right all along'.

I am no conspiracy theorist. But yesterday, Tillerson spoke out against Russia and the poisoning of that spy in the UK. And today, he is fired. Hmmmm......

I think the Russian's modus operandi is 'go big or go home'. Remember the last time something similar happened, they used a radioactive isotope. So I don't think they have too many qualms about pesky 'treaties' or UN violations.

Things are looking pretty tenuous with the last minute negotiations to include Canada in NAFTA. (Or whatever it will eventually be called)Freeland calls for 'flexibility' as NAFTA talks break for weekend | CBC News

quote:

---

NAFTA talks have not soured despite a report that Donald Trump told a news outlet the U.S. will make no compromises in any agreement with Canada, sources told CBC News.

​

Canada raised Trump's comments during negotiations between Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and her counterpart, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, that are now in the final phase in Washington.

​

The Toronto Star reported Friday on comments Trump made, apparently off the record, in an interview with Bloomberg News suggesting the U.S. is in complete control of the negotiations and unwilling to make concessions. The U.S. president reportedly said his position was "going to be so insulting they're [Canada] not going to be able to make a deal." CBC has not independently verified the comments.

---

I'm hoping that this is just another case of Trump running his mouth. And that a deal will still be had by the deadline. But by the last minute nature, I am wondering if Trump will corner Trudeau and Freeland and force a deal that won't be as beneficial for Canada.

Sahara desert is 3000 miles across. And incidentally, its a desert. Which means it is functionally a 'wall' in an of itself. i.e., the likelihood of a poor migrant crossing it safely is probably nil. Dumb idea.

It's likely just political grandstanding. As you said, its to rally the base.A sitting president can't just use executive orders to overrule the constitution. Otherwise, one of them could just overturn the 2nd amendment and make guns illegal.What makes me scratch my head is how he can make such a flagrant claim whilst simultaneously indicating how important it is to hold up the constitution. Something his base is also very rabid about. Guess the irony is lost.

I had the same response to the election outcome. It really isn't anything to sing about. The highly touted 'Blue Wave' turned into little more than a blue trickle. As you said, they have Congress. But honestly, when you look at how many seats the Democrats gained relative to other midterm years, it really is pretty average.More to the point, the Republicans have solidified their hold on the senate. That means treaties and future Supreme Court confirmations are pretty much in the bag. Not sure if there will be other vacancies; but Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85 years old and is having health issues. So there is a possibility that one of the leading left leaning voices in the court could be replaced by another conservative.On the upside, with Dems in control of Congress, at least that will allow for some checks on the White House, including spending controls. They can easily block funding for the border wall and also with subpoena power, they can start delving more into investigations. However, it will be for show mostly. Unless there is some smoking gun to be found. Although honestly, if it existed, I think it would have been found by now.My one takeaway from this election is that the Democrats can't just function as the 'anti-Trump' party. They need to start putting forth a more cohesive message and set of ideas. Trump may be unpopular with people on the left, but he seems to have an uncanny charisma for those on the right. So it can't be just about pointing to his flaws. Granted, there are MANY flaws. But in the end, he will continue to tweet and he will continue to sling mud. We can sling mud back. But the end result of that is that everyone just gets covered in mud.I think a big issue that the Dems should focus on is how the tax cuts are exploding our debt. If it is one thing that resonates with conservatives, its fiscal policy. So while the economy is doing well, our debt is rising. A simple tactic is to start asking why large deficits were unacceptable under Obama but perfectly acceptable under Trump. Hammer them on that. They may try hyperbole saying tax cuts will eventually lead to more taxable income. But the data will debunk that. So I would press the Republicans on that. They always are supposed to be the party of fiscal common sense, so attacking them on their own turf in that regard could sway independents. Which is what wins elections.

I don't get the sense that Democrats are anti-progressive. I would actually say that the social justice crowd has actually gone a little overboard with some of their tactics, such as shouting down speakers at universities or throwing temper tantrums if they hear something they don't like.I think the solution is that Democrats need to start acting like liberals again. That means focusing on individual identity, not collective identity. But as you stated, being for workers is the area that Democrats have completely abandoned. Now, Democrats are functioning like plutocrats in placating to Wall Street in the same way that the Republicans do. Hillary Clinton personified this as she was essentially in the back pocket of Goldman Sachs and there was little distinction between her and other candidates when it comes to bending over for wealthy donors.Democrats need to start listening to the common man again instead of just surrounding themselves with celebrities because they think it will sway the youth vote. For the record, most celebrities are vacuous airheads that care little about politics and are more concerned about getting into the limelight. I would like to see Democrats having honest conversations with workers and finding real solutions to the problems they face. If workers are upset about jobs being shipped overseas, tackle that problem directly. If they are concerned about immigrants taking their jobs, talk to them and explain the truth. Ignoring their concerns just allows the fear mongering from the right to fester.

Jeff Sessions out as attorney general | CNN Politics

quote:

---

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump on Wednesday fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

​

"At your request I am submitting my resignation," Sessions wrote in a letter to White House chief of staff John Kelly.
Matthew Whitaker will take over as acting attorney general, the President said.

---

Well that didn't take long. Who's next?

Granted. But I think that has more to do with just elitism than it does with anti-progressiveness. The Republicans tried to squash Trump's nomination as well. The establishment in both parties is very entrenched. Which is part in parcel with the problem and why we are seeing a wave of populism manifesting both here and overseas. In addition, get rid of the idiotic super delegate system in the Democratic presidential primary process. It is one of the most un-democratic concepts that can exist and smacks of the very elitism that causes people to chastise politicians. Say what you want about Republicans, but their nomination process is more democratic. From what I read, he is already under consideration for being a strong contender for the presidency on the Democrat side. And stop using labels against people who may have concerns about illegal immigration. The knee jerk reaction for many on the left when someone voices concern with illegal immigration is to just outright call them a racist. They did this in the UK as well leading up to Brexit. Which was mostly laughable since the vast majority of immigrants to the UK were from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.One other sidebar for the Democratic party: distance yourselves from the Clintons. Hillary Clinton is not popular even among many on the left after it came to light that she worked behind the scenes to railroad Bernie Sander's campaign. Also, while Bill Clinton is popular, allowing him to stump for the Democrats smacks of hypocrisy in light of #MeToo. As liberals, if we are going to be champions for women's rights and protection in the workplace, we have to acknowledge that Bill is not a great example of that mindset. I don't discount his accomplishments as president. I think he was an excellent president. But I also think Tiger Woods is an excellent golfer. But I wouldn't want either of my nieces anywhere near him.

No, he isn't. The statement was not directed at RAZD. It was in regards to tactics many on the left use as a knee jerk reaction to specific policies or opinions on illegal immigration. RAZD and I were positing ideas on how to improve things for Democrats by citing different ways of operating. Granted. The problem is that the Democrats don't offer any cohesive solution. They champion sanctuary cities and and amnesty, but they don't offer any concrete answers to the problem as a whole. As you said, we can't be unsympathetic to the plight of people. That would make us heartless. But we have to be cognizant of the fact that endorsing policies that encourage illegal immigration makes us appear as though we think the rules shouldn't apply.The USA and most western nations have a very strong sense of the rule of law. I won't discount that racists also use illegal immigration as a way to push their moronic agenda. But the counter to that should not be 'just ignore the rules and we will let you in anyway'. That causes liberals to lose credibility in the eyes of the American people and gives ammunition to the radical racists.I've said before that one policy that Democrats should be pushing is for ending the idiotic drug war. There is a direct correlation between our drug war and the fact that drug cartels and gangs have essentially taken over many of these countries, turning them into war zones. If the Democrats take more time explaining that notion to people and indicate that ending the drug war will likely curb illegal immigration, that will likely resonate with voters.One sidebar to mention: we also have to consider the broader picture when considering how we take in refugees. Note that the countries they are leaving are in bad shape, but if they continue to hemorrhage good people who flee to other countries, they will continue their downward spiral. That makes things infinitely worse for those that remain in the country. While we need a policy of empathy for those who seek refuge, I am all for policies of helping these countries get back to normality.

I don't have a problem with amnesty per se. But what I propose is not a blanket policy of any sorts and to tackle amnesty on a case by case basis. Simply offering amnesty wholesale is just going to ensure that the influx of illegal immigration will increase by large amounts. That is what happened in Europe in 2015 when Merkel just blindly said anyone could come in. And with the open border policy of the Eurozone, it caused a massive influx and huge pressures on countries like Greece and Italy that took the brunt of it. The end result was the massive wave of populism that they are now facing. You can only end it when you have the legislative power. My assertion is the Democrats need to campaign on that notion and explain the rationale. They can even utilize Republican philosophy against them. Make it a state's rights issue. Indicate that they want to decriminalize drugs at the federal level and give more autonomy to the states on what they want to criminalize or not. It's not a perfect solution, but it puts the Republicans in a difficult position because they are all about state's rights. And therein lies the endgame. I would like to see Trump voted out of office in the next election. My concern is the Democrats focus only on Trump himself and his antics and don't put forther any cohesive policies. My strategy would be policy based. Trump will always say something stupid or provocative. That is his nature. But by continuously being outraged, we are literally playing his game. Remember, this is a salesman and a reality TV star. By keeping the focus on him, he can easily just continue to spew nonsense and just say the Democrats are focusing too much on his antics and not on policy. He is literally baiting them daily and they continue to fall for it.What's the old adage when it comes to surfing the internet? Don't feed the trolls.