Trump Says "I'm A Nationalist" - May We Complete The Sentence For Him?

Identity Evropa wants to ban non white immigration, -  Stephen Miller wants to ban non white immigration. 

Trump says he would like to see more immigration from "Norway".   See how the picture gets filled in? 

I heard this the other day and, couldn't find the story on the web sights I checked so, I never posted it. Patrick Casey was dumb enough to admit this on camera to an NBC reporter and, I think Mitch McConnell was at that Republican rally and, mentioned that he knew Casey and, thought he was a wonderful guy. All I can say is, Mitch what's hiding in your closet?

Patrick Casey also specifically credited Donald Trump in that interview for helping to make the Republican Party susceptible to a white nationalist takeover. 

[deleted]

That's the last time I'm letting you post that meme on one of my articles. Starting now they will all be removed as off topic. Enough is enough. 

Same thing with your threads of hate.

Last I heard ANTIFA means anti fascist.

May We Complete The Sentence For Him?

no. you may not.

believe it or not, some people love this country.

of course, the left will want to call us "white" nationalists but ya know, kids will be kids...

nationalists and trump supporters come in all flavors folks

Well, at least you didn't claim that nationalist is just the name of D.C's major league baseball team. 

A take on nationalism I agree with.

Nationalism and patriotism both show the relationship of an individual towards his or her nation. The two are often confused and frequently believed to mean the same thing. However, there is a vast difference between nationalism and patriotism.

Nationalism means to give more importance to unity by way of a cultural background, including language and heritage. Patriotism pertains to the love for a nation, with more emphasis on values and beliefs.

When talking about nationalism and patriotism, one cannot avoid the famous quotation by  George Orwell , who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature and nationalism can be a little aggressive.

Patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. One can say that nationalism is militant by nature and patriotism is based on peace.

Most nationalists assume that their country is better than any other, whereas patriots believe that their country is one of the best and can be improved in many ways. Patriots tend to believe in friendly relations with other countries while some nationalists don’t.

Link

I don't get too worried about the semantics and sophist arguments are out of season.

call us nationalists or patriots, matters not.  we love our country and our culture.

we also believe that open border globalists can fuk off.

and our culture.

what is "your" culture?

hahahahahaha - I can't wait to hear this.  

I want to be part of your culture!   What do I have to do?  I think I meet the most important "requirement" but let me know and I'm happy to apply.

The point is, there is a difference in nationalism and patriotism.

One is not one to be proud of.

Also, we are already a global world and population. To deny that is rather strange.

what is "your" culture?

I guess that could be summed up in two words... 

liberty and security.

but if I wanted to be facetious? I would say... apple pie, baseball, hot dogs and secure borders... LOL

There is an American culture, but it has derived from places all over the globe. Pizza is an American food, now. The only indigenous American culture belongs to the descendants of the natives. 

liberty and security.

but if I wanted to be facetious? I would say... apple pie, baseball, hot dogs and secure borders... LOL

What about rap music and NBA basketball? 

liberty and security

Liberty, like civil liberty and is everyone entitled to civil liberty or is there a criteria?

Security, physical security like the military or is cyber security included?  

What about rap music and NBA basketball? 

that falls under "liberty...  enjoy.

cheers

oh, lol. 

I think our questions were too hard......

every legal liberty including civil rights falls under liberty even baseball and apple pie

and...

every security issue falls under security including border security, home security and cybersecurity.

too complicated?

I think our questions were too hard

nah... way too easy my friend, simply way too easy

there are two things the progressives will never find their way around

individual liberty and national security

There you are!  I thought you left.  

So.......let's chat about cyber security.  Are you good with punishing someone......let's say a Russian, if they cyber attacked the United States?  What if someone helped the Russian.......let's say someone like an American!  Do you think the American is culpable for the cyber attack also?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Also, we are already a global world and population. To deny that is rather strange.

And, backwards looking.

Puh-lease.  You support a dude who encouraged an enemy of our country to attack us and I'm the one that's weak on security..... 

This explains quite a bit about the mindset of a Trump supporter.  

I don't get too worried about the semantics

You should because this shit is important. Fascists are "nationalists" but not patriots.

I'm a patriot and I took an oath to fight off fascists and others who would seek to bring down our republic

What about rap music and NBA basketball? 

what about pierogies and stuffed cabbage?

You should because this shit is important.

sorry to inform you, but,

nothing said on this site, by anyone on any day, is important in any way shape or form.

no votes are being changed here and no world is being saved here either.

Fascists are "nationalists"

bs..     mussolini was a socialist  (hard left)

 I took an oath to fight off fascists

[Removed]

   mussolini was a socialist  (hard left)

en.wikipedia

cheers

No, I don't think you do.

Retract this:

Removed for context

I don't hang out with anybody that condones violence or censorship and I don't support government suppressing political opposition. That's a pretty damning thing to say and you have no right to say it because you don't fucking know me. Either retract it or don't ever respond to me again and I in turn will ignore you

Retract this:

have you called for anyone in obama admins arrest for misuse of power and fabricating evidence to spy on a presidential candidate?

if the answers are no? not a chance of retraction... I will only dig in deeper.

mussolini was a socialist  (hard left) click to search search bing and get smarter here

en.wikipedia

 are trump supporters socialists?   not a chance.

? the only fascists in the usa today are on the left.   

bs..     mussolini was a socialist  (hard left)

The ideology is associated with a series of three political parties led by Benito Mussolini : the Fascist Revolutionary Party (PFR) founded in 1915, the succeeding National Fascist Party (PNF) which was renamed at the Third Fascist Congress on 7–10 November 1921 and ruled the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 until 1943 and ...en.wikipedia

Benito Mussolini , an Italian World War I veteran and publisher of Socialist newspapers, breaks with the Italian Socialists and establishes the nationalist Fasci di Combattimento, named after the Italian peasant revolutionaries, or “Fighting Bands,” from the 19th century. Commonly known as the Fascist Party, Mussolini’s new right-wing organization advocated Italian nationalism , had black shirts for uniforms, and launched a program of terrorism and intimidation against its leftist opponents.

history

honestly, you do not seem to even know what fascism is.

• Father of fascism

bing

• Father of nationalism

bing

/

just curious... if you found out hitler highly endorsed "food"

does that suddenly mean everyone who eats food is a nazi?

in other words...

lots of countries support, love, and are proud of their cultures,

that does not make them all fascists

now... lets try to convince me why a socialist would go far right as you claim?

Mussolini split from the Socialist Party in 1914 . Starting his own newspaper, he encouraged violence from his supporters as unrest spread across the country.


 MUSSOLINI THE JOURNALIST

Following a stint in the military, Mussolini returned to newspapers and by 1918 called for a dictator to seize control of Italy. Pressure from Mussolini and his followers forced the government to order the internment of foreigners they considered enemies.

After the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 – and his dissatisfaction with it – Mussolini gathered the various fascist groups into a national organization called Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. The Italian Fascists courted war veterans and encouraged violence against socialists . Mussolini stockpiled weapons and explosives in his newspaper offices.

Benito may have started out as a 'socialist' but he became the definition of a Fascist/Nationalist. Adolf Hitler modeled the rise of the 3rd Reich upon Benito's experiences.

Mussolini’s first act as prime minister was to demand special emergency powers allowing him to rig elections in the Fascists’ favor. Soon after, the Italian parliament made suspicion of being anti-Fascist punishable by imprisonment without trial. The next year police rounded-up Socialists, and the government restricted their publishing activities.  history

gee, Mussolini sounds like the worst kind of 'socialist', doesn't he? /s

Mussolini’s first act as prime minister was to demand special emergency powers allowing him to rig elections in the Fascists’ favor.

got democrat written all over him... LOL

did he use the power of govt to spy on his opposition as well?

just curious... if you found out hitler highly endorsed "food" does that suddenly mean everyone who eats food is a nazi?

Thank you for deleting your original comment.

nothing said on this site, by anyone on any day, is important in any way shape or form.

and if you truly believe this

Why do you comment, when you could be surfing...........

Cheers

Typical leftist disinformation 

“ Mussolini praised the historic developments of " heroic capitalism " - what Mussolini considered the first stage of capitalism, which he found had provided useful economic developments, but he claimed that capitalism had deteriorated, and criticized the contemporary stage of capitalism that he termed " supercapitalism ". He argued,

I do not intend to defend capitalism or capitalists. They, like everything human, have their defects. I only say their possibilities of usefulness are not ended. Capitalism has borne the monstrous burden of the war and today still has the strength to shoulder the burdens of peace. ... It is not simply and solely an accumulation of wealth, it is an elaboration, a selection, a co-ordination of values which is the work of centuries. ... Many think, and I myself am one of them, that capitalism is scarcely at the beginning of its story. ^[200]

Years later in a November 14, 1933 speech, Mussolini decidedly rebuked economic liberalism and laissez-faire . In the United States, the Hearst Press printed his speech under the headline: “Mussolini Abolishes the Capitalist System.” ^[201] Mussolini declared:

To-day we can affirm that the capitalistic method of production is out of date. So is the doctrine of laissez-faire, the theoretical basis of capitalism… To-day we are taking a new and decisive step in the path of revolution. A revolution, in order to be great, must be a social revolution. ^[202]

To Mussolini, the capitalism of his time had degenerated from original capitalism, which he called dynamic or heroic capitalism (1830–1870) to static capitalism (1870–1914) and then finally to decadent capitalism or supercapitalism, which began in 1914. ^[203] Mussolini, in 1933 amid the Great Depression , announced that modern supercapitalism was a failed economic system that was the result of the long-term degeneration of capitalism. ^[204][205] Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption. ^[206] Fascists argued that supercapitalism "would ultimately decay and open the way for a Marxist revolution as labor-capital relations broke down. ^[207]

Mussolini claimed that supercapitalism resulted in the collapse of the capitalist system in the Great Depression . ^[208] Mussolini claimed that fascism would preserve those elements of capitalism that were deemed beneficial, such as private enterprise provided that it would be supervised by the state in fascist economics. ^[209] However Mussolini claimed that fascism explicitly rejected the typical capitalist elements of economic individualism and laissez-faire . ^[209] Furthermore, Italian Fascism also acknowledged socialist influences, such as revolutionary syndicalism . ^[210] Mussolini claimed that in supercapitalism, "[it] is then that a capitalist enterprise, when difficulties arise, throws itself like a dead weight into the state's arms. It is then that state intervention begins and becomes more necessary. It is then that those who once ignored the state now seek it out anxiously." ^[211] Due to the inability of businesses to operate properly when facing economic difficulties, Mussolini claimed that this proved that state intervention into the economy was necessary to stabilize the economy. ^[211]

Not long after the creation of the Institute of Industrial Reconstruction, Mussolini boasted in a 1934 speech to his Chamber of Deputies that “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state." ^[159][160] As Italy continued to nationalization its economy, the IRI “became the owner not only of the three most important Italian banks, which were clearly too big to fail, but also of the lion’s share of the Italian industries.” ^[161]

During this period, Mussolini identified his economic policies with “state capitalism” and “state socialism,” which later was described as “economic dirigisme,” an economic system where the state has the power to direct economic production and allocation of resources. ^[212] Earlier in 1922, Lenin employed the same phrase to favorably characterize “state capitalism” as an appropriate economic system for Soviet Russia that would encompass “a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control," where, according to Lenin, every state-owned enterprises had to operated on a "profit basis." ^[213]

By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state–ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union, ^[162] where the Italian state “controlled over four-fifths of Italy’s shipping and shipbuilding, three-quarters of its pig iron production and almost half that of steel.” ^[163]

^{en.m.wikipedia}

^{duplicate comment deleted}

Why do you comment,

simple fun... no other reason required

I'm also playing a game called "rust" at the same time.

cheers to you too

Thank you for deleting your original comment.

no problem....

but before I go... I want you to meet another fascist democrat... maybe you heard of him?

dailycaller

Typical leftist disinformation 

accuse others of that which you do = straight out of the left's playbook.

accuse others of that which you do = straight out of the left's playbook.

sorry, i definitely disagree that it is limited to one side only.

of course you would accuse the right of doing what the left does.

that is the idea exactly... and my point.

you must have read alinsky's rules for radicals also huh?

good job

of course you would accuse the right of doing what the left does.

that is the idea exactly... and my point.

good job

sorry, i don't play in your imaginary war of "right vs left", i can see both sides do exactly that. Of course you'll disagree while claiming your side is angelic - it's what the other side does too. Both sides of the same coin - once you figure that out, you'll be much better off good luck !

Both sides of the same coin

truthfully? I have been saying for yrs... if the bs keeps up all we will have left is 

rightwing fascism -vs- leftwing fascism

but now I have no fear of that happening...  the paradigm has shifted.  all the bs of the past decades is coming to an end.

those on the right and left who have been selling us out are losing that power rapidly and with a swiftness.  

those who would use violence or censorship to silence opposition? those are the fascists and luckily they are  damn near out of business... have you not noticed the lack of antifa?   it gets kind of peaceful when fascists in the whitehouse do not fund and then turn a legal blind eye to the violence of real fascists like antifa   BTW we changed their name to:

antifa = anti-First Amendment.

  more honest and it fits nice don't ya think?

truthfully? I have been saying for yrs... if the bs keeps up all we will have left is 

rightwing fascism -vs- leftwing fascism

but I have no fear...  the paradigm has shifted.  all the bs of the past decades is coming to an end

you have more confidence than i do - i think it'll unfortunately continue.

those on the right and left who have been selling us out are losing that power rapidly and with a swiftness.

those who would use violence to silence opposition? those are the fascists and luckily they are  damn near out of business... have you not noticed the lack of antifa?   it gets kind of peaceful when fascists in the whitehouse do not fund and then turn a legal blind eye to the violence of real fascists like antifa   BTW we changed their name to:

antifa = anti-first amendment.

it fits nice don't ya think?

if fits as nicely as the right wing groups that do the same both sides of the same coin !

bs...   no one on the right is calling for the daily kos to be shut down or trying to get rachel madcow fired. or anything like that. no rightwingers protesting leftwing speakers can be found at any college.

and there are no rightwing tech companies censoring liberals either... 

those are decidedly and undebatably, leftwing sports by today's fascists

cheers

bs...   no one on the right is calling for the daily kos to be shut down or trying to get rachel madcow fired. or anything like that.

i can see the left calling for people to get fired - like  Anderson Cooper denouncing Kathy Griffin and wanting her to be fired ( like many other "left" individuals ) or 

cnn

looks like Democrats also called him to resign ... oh wait.. you thought they only called for the conservatives to resign didn't you ? sorry...

and there are no rightwing tech companies censoring liberals either... 

and now you are upset with tech companies running their private businesses how they see fit in the same manner this website does ? whatever happened to that popular conservative mantra - " let the free market punish them " ?? 

you thought they only called for the conservatives to resign didn't you ?

I was aware of that... now tell me why ALL democrats did not call for him to resign?

or did you think I meant all democrats are fascists? if so you was wrong.

the interesting thing for me is... I reckon there are only two, maybe three ways for things to go from here.

how long ya think it will be before the democrat party spits in two? quick solution

or

do you see the moderates pushing the leftwing fascists out of the democrat party? long solution

or

will the democrat moderates move to and then remain independents forever? no solution

should be fun to watch

So into the false Obama stories.  Here, instead of spreading bullshit, read the truth.  And any comment on Russia hacking Hillary and the dems? 

time

npr

chicagotribune

And Mussolini was a FASCIST!  And not a socialist.

en.wikipedia

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian , and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle . Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon, but when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognises the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade-unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonised in the unity of the State. (p.15)

And Mussolini was a FASCIST! 

and.... you are late to the party,

we already covered all that and we have moved on.

we are not starting over just for you...

start at the top of the thread and read everything on the way down.

be sure to check out Reagans video as well

and now you are upset with tech companies running their private businesses how they see fit in the same manner this website does ?

  me being upset? your too funny. 

fact is... you have never met a happier person... that's why I smile and say cheers so much.

  there is no better argument against liberals than their censorship activities on display for everyone to see.

   and in the end those websites I listed will stop censoring people for legal political speech or they will lose their legal protections for what they forget to censor or simply choose not to censor. and the lawyers will be richer for it.

they can't have it both ways for much longer... I hope they have fun while it lasts.

cheers

Raised my right arm once and took an oath. Seems the guy who swore me in became a traitor. Funny what lots of money can buy.

nationalists and trump supporters come in all flavors folks

“We had a case where we had an African-American guy who is a fan of mine, great fan, great guy... Look at my African-American over here. Look at him! Are you the greatest?”

Yeah, vanilla, old vanilla, french vanilla, vanilla bean, white chocolate vanilla, and vanilla with one dark chocolate chip on top...

Yeah, vanilla, old vanilla, french vanilla, vanilla bean, white chocolate vanilla, and vanilla with one dark chocolate chip on top...

My wife, Gloria would have said "A raisin in a bowl of milk".

funny how the rightwinger in this conversation cannot relate to either of the above two comments.

so let me get this straight...

there are sayings like those associated with skin color? and you two know them by heart?

I have never heard or said any such bs like that... it would never be tolerated nor should it.

and yet, I am a racist?

the hypocrisy is fukin thick round here...  and too funny for any more words

I have never heard or said any such bs like that... it would never be tolerated nor should it.

and yet, I am a racist?

the hypocrisy is fukin thick round here...  and too funny for any more words

First, I was quoting my DEAD wife who said it and, said it often. Second, she was not a racist, how do I know this, she was African-American.

First,

A) every race has their fair share of racists.

B) try again.

C) Cheers

Had a Jamaican girlfriend once. Her folks hated me for being white and my folks thought that I had made a seriously bad choice. We didn't last as a result.

Had a Jamaican girlfriend once. Her folks hated me for being white and my folks thought that I had made a seriously bad choice. We didn't last as a result.

I had a problem with my in-laws at first, then when I prevented her dad from losing his home to her ex-husband through a stupid move on her dads part, everyone in the family started loving me. The old man was going to sign a quit claim deed over to her ex, I advised her father of what that was and, he refused to sign it.

Pretty sure that never happens.

Pretty sure that never happens

how shockingly diverse of you... LOL

better watch out... they are leaving the plantation again.

dailywire

breitbart

 thefederalist

everyone, all colors are waking up fast.

and the dems better start signing illegals up faster to cover the losses... LOL

it is sad how the left has let the black community down.  

if only the left had given black people jobs instead of welfare, their future would be brighter.

cheers

So far right wingers, who have traditionally hung blacks from trees now pretend to be friends?

So far right wingers, who have traditionally hung blacks from trees now pretend to be friends?

You see, they imagine that no one will notice that the conservative Democrats who once founded the KKK, supported Jim Crow laws, fought against the civil rights and voting rights acts and supported bans on interracial marriage would ever change the party on their voter registration.

To truly understand this issue one must understand that there have never really been just two political parties. In the 1860 Presidential election there were four candidates from four different parties, the Northern Democrats (Stephen Douglas), the Southern Democrats (John C. Breckinridge), the Constitutional Union party (John Bell) and the Republican party (Abraham Lincoln).

The Constitutional Union party was made up of conservative former Whig party members who teamed up with the Know Nothings and some Southern Democrats who pushed for no secession but to avoid the question of slavery and keep the status quo.

The Northern Democrats wanted to keep most of the status quo but to get rid of the fugitive slave laws where the South was trying to force Northern states to return fugitive slaves or suffer fines and penalties.

The Southern Democrats pushed for increased fugitive slave laws and harsher penalties for those who helped fugitive slaves. They pushed for constitutional amendments to further establish slavery as not only legal but necessary to the financial wellbeing of the nation.

For Republicans of that time, their main complaint was over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise which had kept slavery out of Kansas but which Southern Democrats repealed with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Their party name "Republican" was to pay homage to "Thomas Jefferson's Republican Party". I find that rather humorous as many conservative Republicans today seem to have a severe distaste for the very progressive Thomas Jefferson.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 , signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson , a Democrat from the Southern state of Texas, led many Southern Democrats to vote for Barry Goldwater at the national level. In the ensuing years, the increasing conservatism of the Republican Party compared to the liberalism of the Democratic Party (especially on social and cultural issues) led many more conservative white Democrats in the South to vote Republican. However, many continued to vote for Democrats at the state and local levels, especially before 1994 . After 2010, Republicans had gained a solid advantage over Democrats at all levels of politics in most Southern states."

en.wikipedia

en.wikipedia

Knowledge power is stronger than white power. The more you know.

How did the country become this way......it's simply so sad.  More division, more hate, more deplorable behavior cheered and revered by his base.  I just don't get it.  I don't understand how people can toss aside all sense of moral judgement.  How can we have this many disturbed individuals in our country.

It's not an "accident" that Trump uses that language PJ. He knows who is listening to him and seeking approval and encouragement. 

Look at the POS in the white house for your answer.

I blame those who put him there and continue to enable and support him.  They are broken and want everyone to be broken along with them.

Hey PJ - why don't you go get the losers that the Dems had running for President - yeah, that's the ticket.

The American people and Electoral College determined the Dems didn't have shyte for a candidate for President - they still don't.

I have lost a lot of respect for some of his supporters.

Most of them will not even call him on his lies.

They enable him.

Donald Trump was elected based on racism and sexism,

When blue-collar whites heard that implied message from Donald Trump , many realized it aligned with their own beliefs. As a result, they broke with precedent to support the Republican candidate for president.

That's the conclusion of a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , the latest to analyze what drove Trump voters (aside from traditional party affiliation). Other recently published studies have pointed to the appeal of authoritarianism , or plain old racism and sexism .

University of Pennsylvania political scientist Diana Mutz reports a key group of voters—those who switched parties to vote for Trump—were motivated by the vision of a frightening fall in social status. In short, they feared they were in the process of losing their previously privileged positions.

[deleted]

So, 57% of the electoral college is racist and sexist, eh?  That's what you're saying because Trump received 304 EC votes and Clinton received 227.

Now, PNAS has content portals and journal features that provide fresh perspectives on science at a general level—features on trending topics, opinions, explanations of core scientific concepts, and exploration of science and culture—to advance understanding of all aspects of science.

Nice try.

So, 57% of the electoral college is racist and sexist, eh?  That's what you're saying because Trump received 304 EC votes and Clinton received 227.

The Electoral College is partisan. Hillary wont the popular vote.

Read the Constitution - Article II, Section 1, #3. -"The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;"

Sorry - Constitution rules, EC wins, "popular" lost again for the 51st time (couple Presidents had more than one term/election).

I've never respected them.  To vote in a man who has sexually assaulted women and committed so many other despicable acts only showed me that they were and remain morally bankrupt.  

Sorry - Constitution rules, EC wins, "popular" lost again for the 51st time (couple Presidents had more than one term/election).

 

The electoral college exists to keep extremist rabble like Trump from being elected.

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

That would be terrible if it were true but it's NOT.  Oh yeah, we did and the left still loves Bill Clinton anyway

To vote in a man who has sexually assaulted women and committed so many other despicable acts only showed me that they were and remain morally bankrupt.  

Yeah. Bill Clinton  was a terriblleperson and the democrats showed their lack of morality. 

hahahahaha - that's what you come with.  Of course Bill Clinton was a perv.  I've always said that.  A.L.W.A.Y.S  

But hey, if this is what you're putting up against Trump and his actions then I'd say that's pretty pathetic.   

Oh.....and I'm not a democrat.  

The electoral college exists to keep extremist rabble like Trump from being elected.

that is some bs right there... LOL  nice job... LOL

50 states voted their majority opinion as the constitution intended.

but the funny part is hillary had more faithless electors than trump.

kinda like that kavanaugh thing...  and the trump thing... all the way back to the death of the gop thing in 2009...

whatever the left wants? or expects? they keep getting the opposite... LOL

You haven't heard First?   In 2020 it's going to be Hillary vs Trump 2, the rematch!  

The primary reason for the EC is that we are a Republic of Sovereign States with a Federal rather than a national government.

The left longs for the dissolution of this government as a Republic

The American people and Electoral College

You are half correct.  The American people made their choice by over 3 million votes.  It was the EC who chose the POTUS.

 In 2020 it's going to be Hillary vs Trump 2, the rematch!

we can only hope... LOL

It was the EC who chose the POTUS.

sorry but thats bs,

the electoral college voted their states majority opinion as intended by the constitution.

there will never be a day when the national majority means anything in a presidential election.

The primary reason for the EC is that we are a Republic of Sovereign States with a Federal rather than a national government. The left longs for the dissolution of this government as a Republic

Appomattox Courthouse is proof that there are not 50 sovereign states. The Constitution replaced the former Articles of Confederation that gave the states more power but it created a situation for the federal government that was unworkable.

The electoral college exists to keep extremist rabble like Trump from being elected.

Absolutely and completely incorrect.... So a lot of people seem to always ask what is the point of the EC, we keep telling them it is to balance the large population areas with the small population areas...

They always tell us that we are full of it...

So lets end the debate about it....

where was the original debate held on how this nation elects it's president? the Constitutional convention of course, and they specifically wrote out the procedure in the constitution as 1st Warrior pointed out so well above...

But the question remains WHY? well since we DO have the recordings of the convention and what they specifically said and debated and came to conclusions over why doesn't anyone refer to them and see what was their intent?

Why did they create the Electoral College?

James Madison, was not only a delegate to the convention, he was also one of the dozen or so recorders that took down every word. (or made sure it was recorded accurately)

Lets listen to the final logic for the EC as expressed after lengthy debate of virtually every method of electing a president....

1 FARRAND..... Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911). Vol. 2. 10/17/2018. oll.libertyfund   Also in James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1900). Vol. 4. oll.libertyfund (also known as  part 2 of the Journal of the Constitutional Convention.)

"If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should. A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an ineligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

the logic is explained below in current terms, to wit;

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice (of the president) by the people. The right of suffrage (ability to vote) was much more diffusive (widespread) in the Northern than the Southern States;

This means that the north had much more voting power than the south in a popular election hence the south would not have an equal chance in electing a president there just wasn't enough voters.

and the latter (south) could have no influence (not possible for them to win) in the election on the score (number of) of the Negroes. 

This says it plainly, the south would be at a severe disadvantage in a popular election of the president simply because they had a large number of non-voting negroes.

The substitution of electors obviated (eliminated) this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

And here we have it, Madison's recording the conventions logic on the popular election of presidents. There weren't enough votes in the south to fairly elect a president, hence having electors selected by the legislatures of the states based upon total population, (both voting and non-voting) to balance out the heavy popular vote in the much more voting populated northern states, was the whole and sole point of having electors.

That is the result of what was being discussed in the convention. And easily understood when the archaic late 17th century language is adjusted to today's language, it becomes absolutely clear what the point was.

It was ALWAYS about balancing the voting between hugely populated voting blocks and sparsely populated voting blocks...

And always has been.

Pure and absolute genius if you ask me.

Read the links, learn something.

The majority of this country did not want him to be 'president

The majority in this country did not want Clinton either.

and his supporters

Yeah I guess that's why they rioted in the streets and held a "scream day" .  That must be why they keep bringing it up. 

Oh!  Wait!  Those rioters and screamers were Clinton supporters .

This says it plainly, the south would be at a severe disadvantage in a popular election of the president simply because they had a large number of non-voting negroes.

This says it plainly, the southern slave owners would be at a severe disadvantage in a popular election of the president simply because they had a large number of slaves they refused to allow a vote or a voice. If they allowed blacks to vote, they wouldn't be in power, so they had to figure out a way to maintain the most amount of power in the least amount of white land owners hands, thus the electoral college. Without slavery or the "predicament" they found themselves in where they were often outnumbered in their States by the slaves the owned, we would never have had the electoral college. It simply would not exist without it. 

Since southern slave owners no longer exist and black people can now vote, seems to me the EC is archaic and outdated

I was actually on the fence about the EC but your comment swayed me. Thank-you

Cows in Montana have more representation in the US Senate than human beings in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles do. 

Somebody posted a comment that the people in Wyoming actually have more of a say in a presidential election than the voters of California do. They did an equation that proved their point. I still sat on the fence because, you know, the founding fathers couldn't be wrong.

But DP made a compelling argument about slave owners and the need for an EC at the beginning of our nation.

This says it plainly, the southern slave owners would be at a severe disadvantage in a popular election of the president simply because they had a large number of slaves they refused to allow a vote or a voice. If they allowed blacks to vote, they wouldn't be in power, so they had to figure out a way to maintain the most amount of power in the least amount of white land owners hands, thus the electoral college. Without slavery or the "predicament" they found themselves in where they were often outnumbered in their States by the slaves the owned, we would never have had the electoral college. It simply would not exist without it. 

Well, since your so fond of supposing lets extrapolate this under your ideal scenario....

If they had eliminated slavery, there was no 3/5ths compromise and everyone had the right to vote, then the imbalance would have still existed.

The Southern states would have had 50% more voting power than the Northern states based upon population.

The same situation would have existed except in reverse. Which of course the Northern states would not have accepted in the same manner the Southern states didn't.

It had nothing to do with slavery, except in a race baiting mind...

That is the sad truth of it, to know that we still have as many if not more racists today than we did back then...

The Southern states would have had 50% more voting power than the Northern states based upon population.

Besides this not being true (there were about 20,000,000 white citizens and 3,200,000 slaves in the 1850 census), if black Americans hadn't been enslaved and were free to vote and run for elected office we wouldn't have really had any delineation between "Southern" and "Northern" power, we would have just all been Americans as our founders intended. Every American would have their vote count instead of a stupid ridiculous electoral college system.

If when it was decided, they told people what it really was, I doubt any true patriots would have supported it. They would have had to explain "Okay, so you here in New York City and any of the other big American cities, you get one ballot to cast for President. And for all you rural folks, you get 3 ballots to cast in each Presidential election, because, well, um, you know, you're special and should get to vote three times more than your city counterparts even though its likely you're less informed and less educated. Now doesn't that sound like a great system?".

And, much to the angst of many, that's exactly how it's supposed to go, ya know?

Cows in Montana evidently more sense than humans in NY, Chicago, or LA who keep electing marxist statists

Hillary wont the popular vote.

the USA is not a democracy and it will never be a democracy.

the national majority in a federal election means absolutely nothing in our republic and never will.

the majority means Mrs. Clinton got the majority of votes.  Duh

But she did not get the majority of the votes. The majority of the votes went to Trump and other candidates for president. 

I don't understand how people can toss aside all sense of moral judgement.

if abandoning moral judgment means accepting things like shit trade deals and open borders??

get ready for some serious crazy...  ya ain't seen nothing yet... LOL

Too late.....nothing the trump supporter does surprises me anymore.  I just shake my head.  There's nothing else to do.  

There's nothing else to do. 

now your catching on... LOL

Ummmm - that's not a good thing.  just so's you know

yes it is... just so ya know. acceptance is the first stage of recovery

we know it is hard accepting that other people have different beliefs... 

so hey... good job, well done.

cheers

PJ says somberly.... .

You just don't seem to get it or maybe it's intentional.  It's not about different beliefs, it's about a complete shut down on moral principles.  In reality, I don't have too much of an issue with many of the policies but I cannot and will not toss aside my values and shit on other people to support a man who is completely and utterly indecent at every level of his core and being.

What is happening to our country, the hate, the division, is solely on Mr. Trump's supporters.  They have given a stamp of approval to his behavior.   It's unforgivable.   I will never forget or forgive.  I will do everything in my power to shackle what the Trump supporter has unleashed.  Their allegiance is to a man NOT this country. 

What is happening to our country, the hate, the division, is solely on Mr. Trump's supporters

bs,,,

it started with obama and funding the likes of antifa to create chaos in our streets like any good fascist will do.

cnsnews

but sessions has put a stop to that bs.

which is why we hear so little of antifa these days... it is kind of nice and quiet now, all sudden like.

the leftwing fascist's fundamental change of america has failed. in spectacular fashion, I might add.

now, the restoration of our country is in progress... please be patient

O.....kay.  Yes, I've seen reported on the news the recent attempts to "restore" America.

I'm not sure why the right is so angry when they claim to be winning so much.  Some people are never happy.  I hope you find peace soon.

Fox, Beck, Limbaugh the Kochs and the Murdochs created the far right wing in the USA. And it is all about money.

The Trump a 'nationalist?'   Uh...…….probably not.  Recent developments in The Russian Federation coupled with National Security Advisor John Bolton's visit where he met with Russian INTEL and President Putin himself clearly indicates that the Trump has sold himself and the US...………….OUT.

MAGA

the leftist obsession with Russia which only developed after Trump beat Billary is gotten so far beyond laughable it's now merely boring.

The left needs to find a new phobia to promote with the media's help because even the media is abandoning it.

The SVR, CSR and FSB appreciate your support.  Send money.  OIL prices are dropping.

the leftist obsession with Russia which only developed after Trump beat Billary is gotten so far beyond laughable it's now merely boring. The left needs to find a new phobia to promote with the media's help because even the media is abandoning it.

For a person who claims to be a pastor you are the opposite of the teachings of Jesus, or did I miss the Gospel of George Wallace? 

Nothing I stated is in conflict with the teachings of Jesus.  Where did Jesus teach to fear another nation that is toothless to us? 

Your slur is repulsive.  I have never been a Southerner, this has nothing to do with the South and Racism is an evil sin in the eyes of God.

Not to mention my love for my Black Stepsons, and 5 black Grandchildren. Take your racist slurs elsewhere.

What did epi say that was racist? Seems to me you got bent out of shape when being compared to a Southerner. Do you hate Southerners now?

No, but it was an attempt to suggest that I'm a southerner and a racist.

So you think all Southerners are racist?

Curious as to just how many Russian Bots work here.

Good point.

The left hates the term nationalist because they prefer the term globalist 

I'm more interested in why Trump wants to claim he is a nationalist. Even a total idiot like him has to realize that his racist supporters fancy themselves as "nationalists" 

He's trying to get out the vote!  He's also dangling the tax breaks for the middle class and stoking fear with the caravan of migrants.  

Tell us why it's wrong to believe in the nation you live in?

The left hates the term nationalist because they prefer the term globalist 

 

If we extend the Constitution w/ the Bill of Rights to all people or even better the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what is the problem of understanding and embracing the fact that we are a very interconnected global community of people and we need to start acting like it?

ohchr

Don't feed the Russians.

Our Constitution ONLY applies to Americans. It is up to other nations to determine the type of government they want.

I oppose the UDHR as a one world government attempt to control us.

Our Constitution ONLY applies to Americans. It is up to other nations to determine the type of government they want. I oppose the UDHR as a one world government attempt to control us.

The UDHR is a limitation on the power of government and a statement of equal worldwide human rights.  Would you support that idea?  You have no problem trying to create a tyrannical Protestant Christian government that tramples the rights of all but a very few but you don't seem to support equal human rights for all. 

Do you not live on Planet Earth?

stop lying about me. I've repeatedly stated that I oppose ALL theocractic governments.  I'm a minarchist which calls for extremely limited government.

We will not have equal human rights until Christ returns and the devil is put in hell.  Until then you cannot change the nature of mankind. So I do not support some one world government attempting to control humanity

how do you think you are communicating with me?  it's not a relevant question

We will not have equal human rights until Christ returns and the devil is put in hell.

that statement right there not only smacks of proselytizing but also of endorsing a theocratic government. Don't be offended if I don't believe any of the bullshit coming off the end of your fingertips

It is a relevant question. You are a Citizen of Planet Earth. You are connected to every living being on this planet. Your own God tells you to be a steward of this great planet.

We are a global society whether you like it or not.

If we extend the Constitution w/ the Bill of Rights to all people

the constitution does not apply to people not citizens, and/or not standing on our soil and it never will.

  Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

that actually is a great idea.  copy our bill of rights word for word. (no changes made in the translation)

first, we need a world govt capable of enforcing that declaration evenly across the globe.

but ironically, we are currently killing globalism with the election of trump and the upcoming brexit.

.

sneaking world govt backdoor thru trade deals and climate accords was never really a good plan to start with.

britain fell for it with the lisbon treaty...  after watching that go down?

we tossed the paris accord and the TPP into the trashcan  - not happening here

If aliens invade I bet you'll be a globalist.

If aliens invade I bet you'll be a globalist.

He'd try to convert them to his religion first. This would be fun to watch.

Shhhhhh......  

i'd be defending my home and my country, not the planet. I didn't serve in the military to defend the planet.

i'd be defending my home and my country, not the planet. I didn't serve in the military to defend the planet.

 Stop being so parochial.   If the invader is not human you cannot just defend your part of the Earth.  We are all humans, despite our many colors and our languages, so we must learn to work together for the betterment of all people, the animals and most importantly the environment on which we depend. 

that's your opinion, not mine

that's your opinion, not mine

Are you not part of the human species?

If aliens invade I bet you'll be a globalist.

not a chance

no world govt needed. sovereign countries can work together.

try again.

If aliens invade the planet what choice would you have ? 

sovereign countries can work together.

That is globalism. In my opinion.

If aliens invade the planet what choice would you have ? 

Duck and cover ? 

O wait that's for nuclear war. Gee I dont know about alien invasions though.

Run and hide ?  

That is globalism. In my opinion.

if everyone who pushed globalism thought like that there would be no problem ey?

 as they fight to regain their sovereignty again....

ask the brits how that open border, centrally planned, globalism thing has been working out.

cheers

f everyone who pushed globalism thought like that there would be no problem ey?

 as they fight to regain their sovereign country....

ask the brits how that globalism thing has been working out

perhaps we need two different words then.

perhaps we need two different words then.

we already do.  the current lexicon is adequate

• nationalism / goal = sovereign countries with borders govt right around the corner
• globalism / goal = no sovereign countries and no borders govt so far away from thee

in the past 2yrs? the globalist agenda has been setback 100 yrs and still losing ground.

We are already a global civilization.

I bet most of the things in your home are made overseas.

According to our Supreme Court (wrongly imo) million dollar companies are people. And guess what, they are multinational, global.

We live global, we are all already intertwined.

Also most people from the UK that I have heard, enjoyed being able to travel freely between countries.

nationalism / goal = sovereign countries with borders

Nationalism equals my country is better than yours so fuck you.

100 yrs

yes, I exaggerated... sarcasm like that is tuff stuff for some folks, my bad.

so for the nitpickers?

the globalist agenda has been in play well over 60yrs

and now the globalist agenda has been set back 40yrs easy

the trend will continue...

• nationalism / goal = sovereign countries with borders govt right around the corner
• globalism / goal = no sovereign countries and no borders govt so far away from thee

in the past 2yrs? the globalist agenda has been setback 100 yrs and still losing ground

That's good.

But then it sucks that so many of us call global trade globalism.  Not unexpected today though, it seems words are losing their true meanings to many. And many people mean and think globalism iIS global trade. I did. 

So, Thanks for the education on the descriptions of the two different words.

Global trade it is ! 

Nationalism equals my country is better than yours so fuck you.

so close... let me fix it for you.

I mean.... lets be clear.

nationalism means our country is more important than all the other countries in the world combined, so fuk them. either they play fair or we will knock them over. they don't like it? they can try and do something about it any time they feel froggy.

cheers

It is all a lie. The so called globalization is a myth.

Though I would consider myself a proponent.

The people in Europe (the EU) enjoy the ability to travel freely between countries.

It does not mean loss of nation sovereignty.

I send you back to my reply 2.2

It seems to fit perfectly.

nationalism means our country is more important than all the other countries in the world combined

O I dont like that word anymore. 

Separate countries yep . Us better that the rest,, you can keep that part. 

Not only do I see myself as but one person in america I'm Also see myself as one of the billions of humans  on the planet .  Putting myself ahead of the rest of mankind somehow doesn't seem quite right. But to each their own someone has to go first and think they are the most important. 

But as a country we soon would be isolated and falling behind the rest of the world, ostracized, unwanted and constantly defending what we did have from the rest of the world.

NK comes to mind, and we already have one of those , So No thanks.  

NK comes to mind,

  name a single country that has done more for the entire world than we have?

is nk on that list?

I admit I am a bit confused here... do you think nationalism means isolationism like in nk?  

if so... try again.

It does not mean loss of nation sovereignty.

 you have some research to do.

when the eurocrats in brussells tells britain how many fish they can catch in their own territorial waters?  that is but one example of how britain has lost their sovereign state while in the EU.

The people in Europe (the EU) enjoy the ability to travel freely between countries

translations

britain has lost the ability to secure their border but they will get it back in time, after brexit.

once britain leaves, the eu has a shelf life of maybe ten yrs before it goes bust. they will try to raise taxes on remaining members who can not afford to pay and that will start the eu;s end.

you will find that where ever the usa and britain go? the civilized world will follow.

hell, we started this gloablist thing after ww2... was a bad plan, now we are ending it... no problem.

sovereign countries and secure borders are an easy sell to people in this world. 

open borders and foreign planners are not an easy sell for most countries. 

and an impossible sell in the USA read: no dice here

do you think nationalism means isolationism like in nk?  

No but your last definition IMO: could lead to an isolated country like NK. That was my connection.

Especially This section:

nationalism means our country is more important than all the other countries in the world combined, so fuk them. either they play fair or we will knock them over. they don't like it? they can try and do something about it any time they feel froggy.

PS: I doubt NK thinks the world had "Played fair"either  But That's just a detail, The overall "feel" of this definition. Kinda reeks of conceit and anger and seems threatening So, yes I'd want that kind of a country isolated if I was the other countries of the world.  

Can You imagine China, Russia Or even North Korea  declaring those words ?

nationalism means our country is more important than all the other countries in the world combined, so fuk them. either they play fair or we will knock them over. they don't like it? they can try and do something about it any time they feel froggy.

We'd be pissed. 

Apparently it means tearing up arms treaties.

No but your last definition IMO: could lead to an isolated country like NK.

I dont agree.

 this country will always be open for business.... open for illegals? not so much.

and that's the difference in a nutshell.

• open for business? yes
• open borders for illegals? no.

easy stuff when ya get down to it.

cheers

Bullshit and a red herring. 

The ability to secure their border? Who ever said they could not? Could people from Germany travel over? Of course, just like they could travel there.

Open borders does not mean that people from all over the world can decide to move there. Another myth. It is a pact with another country to let their citizens travel freely. I wish some day we would have that with Canada and Mexico.

Do you think that the fish in the ocean could never be depleted? Do you not think it would be better to get the whole word together and preserve, regulate fishing as not to destroy it forever?

I dont agree.    this country will always be open for business ...

What about this part .. ya dont agree with my assessment on this ?

Can You imagine China, Russia Or even North Korea  declaring these words ?

nationalism means our country is more important than all the other countries in the world combined, so fuk them. either they play fair or we will knock them over. they don't like it? they can try and do something about it any time they feel froggy.

I contend.... We'd be pissed. 

Who ever said they could not?

hmmmm, lemme think about that....    only everyone who voted for brexit... LOL

“The appeal of the anti-Establishment populist argument that we need to take back control of our borders and immigration ... proved stronger than the economic risks that Brexit would entail,” Queen Mary, University of London professor of politics Tim Bale said.

too funny...

• we took our country back
• the uk is currently taking their country back
• we took our country back faster... but to be fair? we were not in near as deep

anything else ya need to know? perhaps I will stop by this page again.

not likely... but maybe... LOL

cheers

Anything substantial you can push?

Parroting right wing noise, sadly it is prevalent over there as well.

Who did you take this country back from? Who took it to begin with?

perhaps I will stop by this page again. not likely

So faced with actual questions you are going to run...

So faced with actual questions you are going to run...

nah... only so much fun one can have in any given day on any given topic. im only back because slow news day... LOL maybe tomorrow will bring a better topic. but for now all ya need to know is simple...

 your questions are not important to me

but the fun I have is important to me.

see how that works?  

but just so ya know, the service I do provide for the left,

•   helping them face and then deal with the new upcoming reality and live free from TDS

is completely free of charge.

cheers

The left hates the term nationalist because they prefer the term globalist 

It's like the crew of a spaceship arguing "The uppity flight crew hates the term engine-roomist, they prefer spaceshipist".

We all have to share this amazing blue spaceship hurtling through space at 1.3 million miles an hour, we can't seclude ourselves imagining we're the only passenger that matter or that the rest of the ship isn't important for everyone's survival. "Globalist" is just another term for "Blue spaceship-ist" because whether we like it or not, we're all on a long journey together.

The left

How sad that you think everything is either  all black or all white.

Anything to rile the 30 % percent base before the midterms. The only truth the man has ever said aloud.

Trump has been roundly accused of being a white nationalist.  Nobody ever accused him of being a "nationalist".  Why doesn't he just respond to what he is accused of?  Coming out as a "nationalist" is about as relevant as coming out as a tighty whiteys guy.

Still waiting for those tax returns

Trump Says "I'm A Nationalist" - May We Complete The Sentence For Him?

There's nothing wrong with simple nationalism. It defines the last several centuries around the world. Anyone who ever went to war for a nation engaged in nationalism. Anyone who ever made a treaty between nations engaged in nationalism. Anyone who ever flew or saluted the flag of a nation engaged in nationalism. If you voted for the president of a nation you have engaged in nationalism. It's simply identifying with a nation and promoting the interests of that nation. 

If you can only talk about what Trump said by "completing the sentence" then you are lying. You are characterizing someone else's statements and feelings by adding to what they have said. That's dishonest.

Ever since he ran for office, Trump's enemies on the Left have accused him racism where it didn't exist. There's nothing racist, for example, in demanding that NATO members pay their fair share. That's nationalism. There's nothing racist in demanding better trade terms with Canada, Mexico, the EU or China. It's just nationalism. There's nothing racist about wanting to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. That's nationalism. There's nothing racist about wanting to secure your borders. It's nationalism. There's nothing racist about trying to protect your nation from foreign terrorists. It's just nationalism. There's nothing racist about being proud to stand for the national anthem. It's pure nationalism.

Trump's enemies don't have good reasons for arguing against these positions, which got him elected. In fact, many are on the record agreeing with some or all of these positions. Pelosi, Schumer, both Clintons, Obama. They have all endorsed these issues publicly. Since the Left can't argue against the substance of his positions without being obviously hypocritical, all they can do is accuse him of being racist.

A white nationalist leader told NBC news that Trump deserves credit for making it possible for the white nationalist movement to have an effect on the Republican Party. 

Open your eyes. 

A white nationalist leader told NBC news

Are you in the habit of treating white nationalists as intelligent and wise political analysts? I hope not. I sure don't think that highly of them. Frankly, I don't see them having any effect at all the Republican Party, so I'd say that guy is full of shit. Big surprise!

Can you name him?  The only one I know of is Richard Spencer and he currently leads nobody.

Donald Trump - "I am a (White) Nationalist"...

I'm A Nationalist

He has too much money to actually buy that bullshit. Nationalism is for the poor and stupid. It is a tool to guide them into putting their energy into something that it ultimately pointless, and that will get a lot of them killed.