A Few Comments about Cruz and Rubio

[Boss]

That's what Justice Scalia tried to do, but unfortunately not everyone in the SCOTUS shares his views, not to mention the general public.
The point is, I learned clearly from reality that when you say a candidate represents the values in the Constitution, his supporters will be happy about it while others tend to ignore it or treat the argument like you-know-what...

Well the thing is... our Constitution and system of government is not really up to "people's views" or it shouldn't be. If that is the case, we may as well not even have a Constitution or formal system of government because it can simply be changed depending on "people's views" and we'll all have to live by that until other people with different views control political power. I don't think that's what our framers had in mind and they would be miffed at how someone could think such a foolish idea could prevail.

Your personal views should have absolutely ZERO to do with how you rule as a justice on the Supreme Court. You can't say... Oh, I like Gay Marriage, therefore, I am going to find a way to manipulate the Constitution so that we can legalize it! If that is the standard we're going to establish then we don't really have a Constitution at all. We just have this giant word salad where the words can be arranged to suit our palate at any given time and to hell with what they originally meant.

If most of the general public is in favor of Gay Marriage, why not adopt a Constitutional amendment and have it ratified by the states? That is the process our framers gave us to handle something like that. It's not supposed to be up to "people's views" as determined by a majority of justices. That is not even true democracy... it's oligarchy.

 

[Iceweasel]

What concerns me most about Rubio is his "unusual reaction" against pressure. He sweats like a nervous kid, recites well-prepared debate responses like a robot, and melted down in an inexcusable way against Christie. All of these are clearly signs of weakness. To me, this is much worse than disagreement on certain political positions, and it cannot be corrected in a short period of time. I do not think that someone who failed to stand the pressure of a TV debate can be trusted as the president of the United States. If he can be destroyed by Christie in a Republican debate, what can I expect of him going against leaders such as Putin or Xi? Can I count on him to fight for the American people's best interest against pressure from the Congress and other countries around the world? Rubio might become a successful leader given more time, but now he just doesn't seem ready for the job.

Holy fuck.
You take a snippet out of someone's life, greatly exaggerated at that, and proceed to tar and feather them for it. Rubio did well except for those 4 too many times of repeating the line that got replayed thousands of times. He has a more conservative voting record that Reagan. Hillary has baggage the size of Mt. Everest, to me that matters much more.

People like you put more value on presentation and appearance, even though Rubio does very well almost always, people like you will choose to focus on the few times he didn't. Which candidate has performed flawlessly for the camera? None that I know of.

Those are NOT tiny little thing you can ignore. If he did it in a debate right before the general election, it would be a game changing event (yes, the MSM WILL slaughter him just like before)... Exaggeration? I don't think so! I don't count on you to be objective about the candidate you support, but the point has to be made clear. He has obvious weakness in personality, and it can and will be exploited by his opponents.

I don't expect you to put a lucid thought together at this point but there are no politicians that can't be criticized to death. My point was one of perspective, something in short supply for you apparently. You're worried about Rubio repeating a line a few times too many in one debate and I'm worried about the country moving into socialism. The fact that the MSM is going to tear into the republican candidate isn't even worth mention.

 

[Iceweasel]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

People have always tried to get away with stuff. They aren't going to stop, and you aren't going to prevent them from trying. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to know what the law is, simply because people try to evade it.

Certainly there is this "true meaning" for the constitution, but who speaks for that "true meaning"? You? Me? Cruz? Sanders? Everybody can claim that he speaks for the constitution and that he interprets it in the most objective way in the world. The problem is, when different interpretations are backed by large group of people, you have to go through very complicated processes to prove which one is correct. Just claiming that you are right isn't going to do a damn thing.
Therefore, claiming that someone defends the true meaning of the Constitution is hardly a convincing argument that can bring people on board, although it makes those who are already on board feel better. Lastly, in case you fail to notice, the game is all about bringing people on board. That's the point!

Your point is pure bullshit. Liberals "interpret" the Constitution, and pretty much everything else, to advance their progressive/socialist agenda.
The founders wrote extensively on what they meant, if the simple words written for farmers were too difficult to grasp. Like the Second Amendment, there's no mystery there. They wanted the population armed so tyranny could not set hold.

The lying liberal pond scum wants the population unarmed so they can cram their policies down our throats unopposed. So they set up this false narrative and pretend the short, sweet and simple words are quatum mechanics that only the best trained minds in the country can consider correctly. Liberals lie, it's what they do. The fact that they fool many doesn't change reality.

 

[ptbw forever]

It is all because of the racist racialized political spectrum that Democrats created and Republicans ignored(which Trump is damaging right now in a number of ways). There are very very few actual left wing non-whites who are in favor of gay rights, abortion, environmental regulations etc, so by the standards of the Democratic Party these people(who make up a massive chunk of Democrat voters)should be right wingers and not "progressive" by any stretch of the imagination.

As long as only white people who are religious, own guns, want limits on immigration etc. are considered "right wing", then all Democrats and "moderate" Republicans have to do to label someone "conservative" is point out a white person who fits one or more those descriptions. Republicans must become an unapologetically pro-white, civic nationalist party if it wants to survive even another decade, this will do tremendous damage to the "progressive" agenda because then the Republicans would have tons of social justice issues to use to flip the script and turn "progressivism" on its head.

When it really comes down to it, "far right" is nothing but a racial slur for uppity white people who won't lay down and die.

I disagree with the racial aspects you make here. Yes, the left and democrats play the race card for all it's worth but the conservative right is far from "pro-white" when 3 of the top 5 candidates for president are not white. I think Conservatives have to stick to the message... it's not about your race. We want EVERY American to have liberty and opportunity. We're not going to exploit you in order to advance our agenda and retain political power, we are going to empower you as an individual, regardless of race.

That message only works with whites and "whitewashed" non-whites, it has failed for over 40 years with everyone else because they have their own agenda. The real right wing non-whites will always vote Democrat, along with pretty much all the spectrum of non-whites because white liberals are naive and weak and the masochistic nature of white liberalism even allows non-whites to influence right wing white people through the direct power of the Democrat party.

I also did not say Republicans were pro-white, I said they have to become pro-white. The only hope Republicans have is to turn white areas everywhere into Republican areas. Republicans must turn the Northwest, Midwest and Northeast as red or more red than the South(which will eventually be all Democrat). The only way to turn liberal white areas into Republican areas is for Republicans to embrace a strongly pro-white platform and turn that into a human rights issue which draws strongly humanitarian-minded whites to the party.

Well I reject basically everything you are saying here, that's all I can say. A high majority of minorities vote Democrat because Democrats pander to them with special programs and handouts. But while they get an extra $40 on their AFDC check, some rich liberal crony gets a billion-dollar tax break, others get their taxes increased and the cost of living increase trumps any morsel they handed out to the minority. Rich liberals continue to get richer while the minorities supporting them continue to be shackled to the welfare plantation... it's been going on for over 75 years.

What we have to do is break this mentality of racism where society segregates people based on their skin color and instead, recognizes the individual for who they are and what they bring to the table. It shouldn't matter what color you are... so why does it? Why do minorities continue to let themselves be subjugated by a party that simply doesn't give a rat's ass about them and will use them by exploiting their race to stay in power and advance the agenda of rich white liberals? You'd think 76 years of struggle would be an indicator their plans aren't beneficial.

I don't think you get ANYWHERE by trying to turn the Republican party into the KKK. That is just pure ignorance and I reject that with every fiber of my being and in no uncertain terms. It is certainly NOT what Conservative philosophy is about or should be about under any circumstance.

Becoming pro-white is not turning the GOP into the KKK. Quit adding to the ridiculous hysteria and paranoia.

 

[ptbw forever]

There is definitely the perception by many (including me) that Rubio has peanut sized balls. He would probably be ok as President, but you never know. He does little to inspire confidence.

I am still supporting Cruz. He is very intelligent and stands on principle. I like that he is ideological and opposed to being a populist who sways with the breeze. As an ideologue you can predict how he will act on a variety of thing last and can hold him accountable. Of all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, he is the most logical and analytical in his positions. He can explain what he wants to do, why he wants to do it, how he is going to do it, and what the results will be. He is very lawyerly in his approach. To me, he employs a rational and well thought out approach that none of the other candidates seem to have. The rest appear to merely stake out their positions based on what they perceive will garner the most popular support.

Cruz is indeed ideological. The problem is that he's on the far right. Let's say that he gets the nomination. It's difficult to imagine anybody from the left or a vast majority of the independent supporting Cruz. Are you concerned that he might not be able to defeat Clinton or Sanders in the general election?

I don't consider "on the far right" to be a problem. I've been hearing this "we need a mushy moderate!" schtick every single election for decades now, and it always turns out that conservative does better at the ballot box.

We already have a party that represents liberals. We don't require a second one to be Liberal Lite.

The "far right" is nothing more than a straw man created to push uppity white people into a corner to ostracize them into oblivion. The most radical right wingers actually vote Democrat.

Spoken like a true Trumpette.

No, spoken like someone who has a clue what is going on.

 

[Boss]

Becoming pro-white is not turning the GOP into the KKK. Quit adding to the ridiculous hysteria and paranoia.

Uhm... I'm sorry... you do understand what "white supremacy" means, correct?

"Pro-white" is a synonym for that. Nothing need be added to it.

No... The GOP needs to embrace Conservatism which is never going to have anything to do with "pro" ANY race. Dividing people by race is the antithesis of Conservatism. That's what the Liberals do in order to divide us and keep us pitted against each other. If the GOP is going to become "pro white" then maybe it's time for Conservatives to form their own party and distance themselves from such views?

 

[ptbw forever]

Becoming pro-white is not turning the GOP into the KKK. Quit adding to the ridiculous hysteria and paranoia.

Uhm... I'm sorry... you do understand what "white supremacy" means, correct?

"Pro-white" is a synonym for that. Nothing need be added to it.

No... The GOP needs to embrace Conservatism which is never going to have anything to do with "pro" ANY race. Dividing people by race is the antithesis of Conservatism. That's what the Liberals do in order to divide us and keep us pitted against each other. If the GOP is going to become "pro white" then maybe it's time for Conservatives to form their own party and distance themselves from such views?

You apparently don't understand what "white supremacy" is, nor "pro-white". A pro-white GOP would be defending their own fucking base instead of legitimizing the countless racist attacks against white voters by going on witch hunts looking for "white supremacists". A pro-white GOP would be destroying the "anti-racist" credentials that Democrats tout, based on the disgraceful treatment of white people and voters that Democrats have repeatedly exhibited over the decades that "identity politics" have existed.

If Liberals are so racially polarizing and have so many racists voting for them, then why the hell would the GOP be worried about a few racists voting Republican when they have no power and have no alignment to the party's ideology? Why the hell are Republicans so afraid to call Democrats racists? Why can't the Republicans call themselves the real anti-racist party and the Democrats a hate group?

 

[Boss]

You apparently don't understand what "white supremacy" is, nor "pro-white". A pro-white GOP would be defending their own fucking base instead of legitimizing the countless racist attacks against white voters by going on witch hunts looking for "white supremacists". A pro-white GOP would be destroying the "anti-racist" credentials that Democrats tout, based on the disgraceful treatment of white people and voters that Democrats have repeatedly exhibited over the decades that "identity politics" have existed.

If Liberals are so racially polarizing and have so many racists voting for them, then why the hell would the GOP be worried about a few racists voting Republican when they have no power and have no alignment to the party's ideology? Why the hell are Republicans so afraid to call Democrats racists? Why can't the Republicans call themselves the real anti-racist party and the Democrats a hate group?

Well we can't call ourselves "anti-racist" if we label ourselves "pro-white." That is pretty simple and basic. I think I do understand what the prefix "pro" means and I do understand that "white" is a race. Pro-white means you favor the white race, and coincidentally, that's what white supremacists believe. And I don't believe that represents the views of most Conservatives OR Republicans.

The way you defeat the "anti-racist" credentials that democrats tout is by embracing the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that we should judge men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That means, our message, our policies, our positions and politics, have to be colorblind.

 

[ptbw forever]

You apparently don't understand what "white supremacy" is, nor "pro-white". A pro-white GOP would be defending their own fucking base instead of legitimizing the countless racist attacks against white voters by going on witch hunts looking for "white supremacists". A pro-white GOP would be destroying the "anti-racist" credentials that Democrats tout, based on the disgraceful treatment of white people and voters that Democrats have repeatedly exhibited over the decades that "identity politics" have existed.

If Liberals are so racially polarizing and have so many racists voting for them, then why the hell would the GOP be worried about a few racists voting Republican when they have no power and have no alignment to the party's ideology? Why the hell are Republicans so afraid to call Democrats racists? Why can't the Republicans call themselves the real anti-racist party and the Democrats a hate group?

Well we can't call ourselves "anti-racist" if we label ourselves "pro-white." That is pretty simple and basic. I think I do understand what the prefix "pro" means and I do understand that "white" is a race. Pro-white means you favor the white race, and coincidentally, that's what white supremacists believe. And I don't believe that represents the views of most Conservatives OR Republicans.

The way you defeat the "anti-racist" credentials that democrats tout is by embracing the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that we should judge men by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That means, our message, our policies, our positions and politics, have to be colorblind.

No, it means you appreciate white people and will defend them from endless countless racist attacks from "progressives". If you are not pro-white you are anti-white, a racist. Republicans not defending their own voter base is the reason why they lose to a pathetic and racist party like the Democrats.

The "progressives" have repeatedly claimed they represent Martin Luther King and Republicans repeatedly have done nothing to correct them. Republicans are the "stupid" party, you all never do what needs to be done to win the day.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is definitely the perception by many (including me) that Rubio has peanut sized balls. He would probably be ok as President, but you never know. He does little to inspire confidence.

I am still supporting Cruz. He is very intelligent and stands on principle. I like that he is ideological and opposed to being a populist who sways with the breeze. As an ideologue you can predict how he will act on a variety of thing last and can hold him accountable. Of all the candidates, Republicans and Democrats, he is the most logical and analytical in his positions. He can explain what he wants to do, why he wants to do it, how he is going to do it, and what the results will be. He is very lawyerly in his approach. To me, he employs a rational and well thought out approach that none of the other candidates seem to have. The rest appear to merely stake out their positions based on what they perceive will garner the most popular support.

Cruz is indeed ideological. The problem is that he's on the far right. Let's say that he gets the nomination. It's difficult to imagine anybody from the left or a vast majority of the independent supporting Cruz. Are you concerned that he might not be able to defeat Clinton or Sanders in the general election?

I don't consider "on the far right" to be a problem. I've been hearing this "we need a mushy moderate!" schtick every single election for decades now, and it always turns out that conservative does better at the ballot box.

We already have a party that represents liberals. We don't require a second one to be Liberal Lite.

The "far right" is nothing more than a straw man created to push uppity white people into a corner to ostracize them into oblivion. The most radical right wingers actually vote Democrat.

Spoken like a true Trumpette.

No, spoken like someone who has a clue what is going on.

Yeah, ignorant bigot conspiracy theorist fanboys ALWAYS think they're the only ones who REALLY know what's going on. That's why they're ignorant bigot conspiracy theorist fanboys.

 

[Boss]

No, it means you appreciate white people and will defend them from endless countless racist attacks from "progressives". If you are not pro-white you are anti-white, a racist. Republicans not defending their own voter base is the reason why they lose to a pathetic and racist party like the Democrats.

The "progressives" have repeatedly claimed they represent Martin Luther King and Republicans repeatedly have done nothing to correct them. Republicans are the "stupid" party, you all never do what needs to be done to win the day.

I appreciate ALL people, I don't ever judge anyone based on race. I think that is what makes someone racist. I'm not "pro-white" or "anti-white" I am pro-people. The overwhelming voter base for Republicans and Democrats is white because they are the majority in America. The Democrats ARE racist but you sound just as racist when you utter phrases like "pro-white" and you obviously need someone to point that out to you.

We do not "win the day" by segregating people according to their skin color. We further divide Americans into groups based on skin color and that is deplorable in the 21st century. We should have evolved to a higher thinking by now but some people want to remain mired in the past and cling to skin color as a way to define people instead of looking at their individual character.

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

By "believing in the Constitution", you actually mean believing in your interpretation of the constitution. Now we have a problem: our interpretation do not agree!

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

People have always tried to get away with stuff. They aren't going to stop, and you aren't going to prevent them from trying. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to know what the law is, simply because people try to evade it.

Certainly there is this "true meaning" for the constitution, but who speaks for that "true meaning"? You? Me? Cruz? Sanders? Everybody can claim that he speaks for the constitution and that he interprets it in the most objective way in the world. The problem is, when different interpretations are backed by large group of people, you have to go through very complicated processes to prove which one is correct. Just claiming that you are right isn't going to do a damn thing.
Therefore, claiming that someone defends the true meaning of the Constitution is hardly a convincing argument that can bring people on board, although it makes those who are already on board feel better. Lastly, in case you fail to notice, the game is all about bringing people on board. That's the point!

Your point is pure bullshit. Liberals "interpret" the Constitution, and pretty much everything else, to advance their progressive/socialist agenda.
The founders wrote extensively on what they meant, if the simple words written for farmers were too difficult to grasp. Like the Second Amendment, there's no mystery there. They wanted the population armed so tyranny could not set hold.

The lying liberal pond scum wants the population unarmed so they can cram their policies down our throats unopposed. So they set up this false narrative and pretend the short, sweet and simple words are quatum mechanics that only the best trained minds in the country can consider correctly. Liberals lie, it's what they do. The fact that they fool many doesn't change reality.

You hate the liberals too much that your eyes are blind. You can't even see that I actually hope a conservative candidate wins!

Let me put it this way, I used to think that Rubio was the most competent candidate until I saw his debate performance (not just the one in which he repeated the lines like a stupid robot): that is clearly someone who is weak in personality! Now just because you like him, you don't want to admit his weakness! You can claim that he's the best candidate while ignoring his flaws, but his opponents will ruthlessly exploit those flaws and screw him! Does Rubio have the strength to change the rules of the game? Hell no! So you can curse the media and the left as much as you want, but you can't save him!

The same goes for the constitution: you go and say that your candidate defends the Constitution like a hero, guess what? Nobody gives a damn about it except those who share your interpretation of the Constitution. You can glorify your opinions in the name of Constitution as you want, yet it's just bullshit in the eyes of people who don't agree with you. You say they are hell wrong, so what? They disagree, and despise you as much as you despise them. Let me remind you, the key to the victory in this game is to convince others that your candidate is better, not to annoy and alienate them. Think before you post!

 

[ninja007]

He is crushing both of them in the polls. Not worried at all. Intelligent, honest, and principled will always beat ignorant, lying, and opportunistic head to head

I don't think the hildabitch will be a factor in the general election, she'll be too busy trying to avoid dressing in an orange jumpsuit every day.

oh cmon Texas! you really think Barry's DOJ will prosecute the wench?

 

[ninja007]

No, it means you appreciate white people and will defend them from endless countless racist attacks from "progressives". If you are not pro-white you are anti-white, a racist. Republicans not defending their own voter base is the reason why they lose to a pathetic and racist party like the Democrats.

The "progressives" have repeatedly claimed they represent Martin Luther King and Republicans repeatedly have done nothing to correct them. Republicans are the "stupid" party, you all never do what needs to be done to win the day.

I appreciate ALL people, I don't ever judge anyone based on race. I think that is what makes someone racist. I'm not "pro-white" or "anti-white" I am pro-people. The overwhelming voter base for Republicans and Democrats is white because they are the majority in America. The Democrats ARE racist but you sound just as racist when you utter phrases like "pro-white" and you obviously need someone to point that out to you.

We do not "win the day" by segregating people according to their skin color. We further divide Americans into groups based on skin color and that is deplorable in the 21st century. We should have evolved to a higher thinking by now but some people want to remain mired in the past and cling to skin color as a way to define people instead of looking at their individual character.

the DNC has been doing this since LBJ.

 

[Iceweasel]

But the Constitution is not some mystical document that no one really knows what it means! It took nearly 20 years to compose after many lengthy debates between all kinds of viewpoints and considerations. Every single word was carefully contemplated and crafted into a document which gave us a radically new form of government that had never been tried before. The supporting arguments for every article and every section is found in the Federalist Papers. The only "interpretation" that matters is what the Federalist Papers tell us is the original interpretation and meaning established by the framers. If it's not in there, it can't be shoehorned in through manipulation of language just because you're clever enough to twist and distort semantics.

Ideally, yes you are definitely right. But don't you think that people are "twisting and distorting" the constitution constantly nowadays? All I intend to say is that the meanings of the constitution is not always clear. People disagree. Not that I like it or dislike it.

People have always tried to get away with stuff. They aren't going to stop, and you aren't going to prevent them from trying. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to know what the law is, simply because people try to evade it.

Certainly there is this "true meaning" for the constitution, but who speaks for that "true meaning"? You? Me? Cruz? Sanders? Everybody can claim that he speaks for the constitution and that he interprets it in the most objective way in the world. The problem is, when different interpretations are backed by large group of people, you have to go through very complicated processes to prove which one is correct. Just claiming that you are right isn't going to do a damn thing.
Therefore, claiming that someone defends the true meaning of the Constitution is hardly a convincing argument that can bring people on board, although it makes those who are already on board feel better. Lastly, in case you fail to notice, the game is all about bringing people on board. That's the point!

Your point is pure bullshit. Liberals "interpret" the Constitution, and pretty much everything else, to advance their progressive/socialist agenda.
The founders wrote extensively on what they meant, if the simple words written for farmers were too difficult to grasp. Like the Second Amendment, there's no mystery there. They wanted the population armed so tyranny could not set hold.

The lying liberal pond scum wants the population unarmed so they can cram their policies down our throats unopposed. So they set up this false narrative and pretend the short, sweet and simple words are quatum mechanics that only the best trained minds in the country can consider correctly. Liberals lie, it's what they do. The fact that they fool many doesn't change reality.

You hate the liberals too much that your eyes are blind. You can't even see that I actually hope a conservative candidate wins!

Let me put it this way, I used to think that Rubio was the most competent candidate until I saw his debate performance (not just the one in which he repeated the lines like a stupid robot): that is clearly someone who is weak in personality! Now just because you like him, you don't want to admit his weakness! You can claim that he's the best candidate while ignoring his flaws, but his opponents will ruthlessly exploit those flaws and screw him! Does Rubio have the strength to change the rules of the game? Hell no! So you can curse the media and the left as much as you want, but you can't save him!

The same goes for the constitution: you go and say that your candidate defends the Constitution like a hero, guess what? Nobody gives a damn about it except those who share your interpretation of the Constitution. You can glorify your opinions in the name of Constitution as you want, yet it's just bullshit in the eyes of people who don't agree with you. You say they are hell wrong, so what? They disagree, and despise you as much as you despise them. Let me remind you, the key to the victory in this game is to convince others that your candidate is better, not to annoy and alienate them. Think before you post!

I don't agree that he's weak, the Constitution is written in farmer words by the framers and gets twisted by agenda driven people. I don't give a rats ass if they agree with me, they're wrong. I haven't cursed anyone. I glorify my opinions? What does that even mean? Don't project your shallow bullshit on me, you dumb asshole.

 

[ptbw forever]

No, it means you appreciate white people and will defend them from endless countless racist attacks from "progressives". If you are not pro-white you are anti-white, a racist. Republicans not defending their own voter base is the reason why they lose to a pathetic and racist party like the Democrats.

The "progressives" have repeatedly claimed they represent Martin Luther King and Republicans repeatedly have done nothing to correct them. Republicans are the "stupid" party, you all never do what needs to be done to win the day.

I appreciate ALL people, I don't ever judge anyone based on race. I think that is what makes someone racist. I'm not "pro-white" or "anti-white" I am pro-people. The overwhelming voter base for Republicans and Democrats is white because they are the majority in America. The Democrats ARE racist but you sound just as racist when you utter phrases like "pro-white" and you obviously need someone to point that out to you.

We do not "win the day" by segregating people according to their skin color. We further divide Americans into groups based on skin color and that is deplorable in the 21st century. We should have evolved to a higher thinking by now but some people want to remain mired in the past and cling to skin color as a way to define people instead of looking at their individual character.

Don't give me that crap. We have state sanctioned segregation in many schools now and Democrats never even questioned any of it. Being neutral to what Democrats do only perpetuates it all.

If you are pro-people you are pro-white and will defend the rights of white people that Democrats routinely trample, you can't weasel out of that.

 

[OKTexas]

He is crushing both of them in the polls. Not worried at all. Intelligent, honest, and principled will always beat ignorant, lying, and opportunistic head to head

I don't think the hildabitch will be a factor in the general election, she'll be too busy trying to avoid dressing in an orange jumpsuit every day.

oh cmon Texas! you really think Barry's DOJ will prosecute the wench?

After the hildabitches proclamation that no executive is too big to jail, I don't think they will have any choice but to indite her if the FBI makes a criminal referral.