You don't care who anyone votes for, but your idea of discourse is to call people 'leftie'. And what was it, exactly, in that post which led you to believe I'm a socialist? Or left handed?
Your opposition to national sovereignty, e.g., crying xenophobia over wanting to get control over the illegal immigration problem, is a leftist position. No borders and internationalism comes from the left, i.e., Marxism.
I'm not the one who is angry. I just called you out on the fact that you're using perjoratives in lieu of discourse. And promoting a dictator.
No, I'm calling it as it is. When someone uses Marxist talking points and tactics like calling racism where there isn't any and spinning national sovereignty as xenophobia, I will address it. Calling a spade a spade (or La Raza La Raza) is not "pejorative", it's the truth.
You said you are voting for Trump, who talks about building up the nation's already massive military, conquering the middle east and taking the oil, and eliminating ISIS. A person whose closest advisors say will leave governance to his vice president, and who has not said who that vice president is. And your only excuse for this is Clinton is a neocon, as though there can only ever be one neocon.
I made no excuse. I stated a fact. I also provided the reasons that I voted for Trump and will in November. Do you disagree with my reasons?
I've also said there are things I don't like about Trump and voting for him is a gamble. I think a lot of what he says is hot air, like taking the oil. I do believe him when he says he wants to build up the military, which I'm not on board with. However, there are two budgets - military and defense. If defense spending is cut and the US isn't engaged all over the world, an adequately equipped military would not be a big concern. He's also brought up the amount of waste and ridiculous costs, so his approach should save money. Ideally, I'd like no standing "army" (military) but I'm dealing with reality on this and know that will never happen. He has never said he wants to conquer the middle east. In fact, other than bombing ISIS, he's said he doesn't want the US engaged in these wars or even in NATO, which I want to see dismantled. As for ISIS (and al Nusra and every other takfiri band of psychopaths), they exist and are on their mass murder rampage because of the United States and it's sleazy allies like the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. Russia stepped in to do something about it (to the Obama administration's and 'allies' consternation) and then the US joined in - BUT - because of the AngloZionist anti Russia agenda, cooperation and coordination with the Russians has been severely lacking. I don't want to see the US doing anything militarily abroad but, as Colin Powell said, "We break it, we own it". Hundreds of thousands of people are being butchered all over the middle east and in north Africa because a chain of events that the US initiated and now these jihadi freaks have to be dealt with. I don't oppose "bombing the shit out of ISIS". Russia can't do the job alone. Maybe you would say it's not our problem. I don't know. I know we (the USA) set it in motion (and are still arming and funding these maniacs). IMO, that makes it a US problem, though not nearly the problem it is for the people of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and beyond.
I don't think Trump knows half the truth of how this all came to be. I don't think he knows that Israeli hospitals provide medical treatment for jihadis fighting in Syria. I hope he finds out.
If you're not into it, why have you advocated for it? And since when is kicking everyone who isn't as white as you Marxist bull$#@!?
You must be trolling (your usual style - I remember you, too). You and a couple of others are the ones using the CM tactics, not I. You finish your idiotic statement with talking about "kicking everyone who isn't as white as you". lol. You are proving every thing I'm saying. What's next, something about "brown people"? So, you're equating deportation of illegal aliens and trying to stop illegal immigration with kicking people who aren't white (more race baiting) which means, AGAIN, that you do not believe in the concept of national sovereignty, in particular, US sovereignty. I realize that many libertarians are in favor of open borders and oppose nation states. That's another thread, though. All I'm saying is own what you're doing and saying and you aren't. You're playing the race card.
Are you accusing me of being one? Care to prove it?
No, I'm stating the fact that you're using the tactics and are a leftie on the issue of US sovereignty and open borders. Rather than defend your open borders position, you resort to the false charge of racism which is another tactic of the left. I will say it's quite popular among those who claim to be on the "right", like the neocons (who are really left) and the Republican establishment worried about competing with Democrats who have a near lock on it.
Look, susano. You have a long and colorful posting history. I don't care to play the game of posting that evidence and having you deny that it is evidence, or trying to spin it as something it clearly isn't. Anyone who doesn't already know can look at your posting history and see all the proof they could ever need.
Proof of what?
Hate has nothing to do with the post you quoted. In that post, I merely pointed out that you are ignoring evidence in deciding what Trump is and what he is not, and setting the record straight. Now, since you don't have a factual leg to stand on, I can understand that you would project all your weaknesses onto me, then accuse me of doing what you are doing. But that doesn't mean I have to let it stand.
Sorry, snowflake, you were race baiting and got called on it. As for Trump, I do believe his sentiments are toward national sovereignty and sh#tcanning trade deals that are gutting the US economy. I also think he's very shallow on his depth of KNOWLEDGE and it remains to be seen if he can get up to speed on a lot of issues. He senses things are wrong without being able to properly articulate it because of that lack of knowledge. He knows enough to attack political correctness but doesn't know where it came from and that it's intention is to destroy free speech followed by thought control. He sees the problem of illegal immigration but has no clue about the forces behind it. He knows the problem in Ukraine is something that the US shouldn't be involved in but doesn't know the US created it. Calling him a dictator is absurd. He's never even held office. So far he just shoots his mouth off.
He believes that what happened is tangentially related to the fact that he's Hispanic, but that has nothing to do with race? Is that because you inserted the word 'tangentially' in the sentence? Or is Hispanic no longer a racial term?
While that last remark was to danno, I'll comment. Hispanic is not a race. Black Cubans are hispanic and so are white Spaniards. It's nothing but a classification based upon language and the people from the countries that speak it (Spain and it's former colonies).
) and then rants about how not wanting them here isn't being racist, because Hispanics are white. If they were called mestizos, then there might be an argument.
