Turning The Ballot Box Against Republicans

Do you think it is his actual policy positions that appeal to people or the volume of his publicity?

When the Trump storm broke this summer, it touched off smaller tempests that stirred up American politics in ways that were easy to miss from afar. At the time, I happened to be reporting on extremist white-rights groups, and observed at first hand their reactions to his candidacy. Trump was advancing a dire portrait of immigration that partly overlapped with their own. On June 28th, twelve days after Trump's announcement, the Daily Stormer, America's most popular neo-Nazi news site, endorsed him for President: "Trump is willing to say what most Americans think: it's time to deport these people." The Daily Stormer urged white men to "vote for the first time in our lives for the one man who actually represents our interests."

Ever since the Tea Party's peak, in 2010, and its fade, citizens on the American far right--Patriot militias, border vigilantes, white supremacists--have searched for a standard-bearer, and now they'd found him. In the past, "white nationalists," as they call themselves, had described Trump as a "Jew-lover," but the new tone of his campaign was a revelation. Richard Spencer is a self-described "identitarian" who lives in Whitefish, Montana, and promotes "white racial consciousness." At thirty-six, Spencer is trim and preppy, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Chicago. He is the president and director of the National Policy Institute, a think tank, co-founded by William Regnery, a member of the conservative publishing family, that is "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States and around the world." The Southern Poverty Law Center calls Spencer "a suit-and-tie version of the white supremacists of old." Spencer told me that he had expected the Presidential campaign to be an "amusing freak show," but that Trump was "refreshing." He went on, "Trump, on a gut level, kind of senses that this is about demographics, ultimately. We're moving into a new America." He said, "I don't think Trump is a white nationalist," but he did believe that Trump reflected "an unconscious vision that white people have--that their grandchildren might be a hated minority in their own country. I think that scares us. They probably aren't able to articulate it. I think it's there. I think that, to a great degree, explains the Trump phenomenon. I think he is the one person who can tap into it."

Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance, a white-nationalist magazine and Web site based in Oakton, Virginia, told me, in regard to Trump, "I'm sure he would repudiate any association with people like me, but his support comes from people who are more like me than he might like to admit."

It does not matter to some. About a week ago I posted a quote from a leftist with the argument that all boarder controls and citizenship controls are immoral, that humane individual rights demands that people be allowed to live where ever they want on this planet. That is how divorced from reality some of these nuts on the Left have become, If anyone who likes my house (country) better than their house (country) can walk in and take up residence then I am not going to go to the work of making a nice house, there is no motivation because I will not be able to enjoy the product of my work. Under that regime the entire planet becomes a cesspool.

I used to be against border fences and aggressively throwing the illegals out, but we have to draw the line someplace, and maybe that is the right place. I am listening to arguments for and against.

At any rate, we need new waves immigration in order to keep the country vital and refreshed.

You build a better country and then people swarm in from all over the world to ruin it with over population, you build a better house and a bunch of people ruin it by moving in and overpopulating it.

Not relevant to our not enforcing immigration law but for this: is we got to pick who comes we are likely to get better candidates then these illegal mexicans that are coming over.

What we need are smart hard working people, not more uneducated idiots who are willing to clean toilets for sub min wage.

I agree with the Left that we need to raise wages, but the way to do it is to stop the flow un uneducated workers who are easily manipulated into low wage work, we need to create the conditions where the holders of capital are forced to choose between paying free market rates for labor or else have no labor. These mexicans that we let stay **** up the entire market, they are the primary reason so many jobs have poverty wages. We can fix all that by going to legal immigration only.

I agree with the Left that we need to raise wages, but the way to do it is to stop the flow un uneducated workers who are easily manipulated into low wage work, we need to create the conditions where the holders of capital are forced to choose between paying free market rates for labor or else have no labor. These mexicans that we let stay **** up the entire market, they are the primary reason so many jobs have poverty wages. We can fix all that by throwing the illegal Mexicans out and going to legal immigration only.

Legal immigration is also much more likely to get us people who can hit the ground running working on the problems of this nation. Uneducated mexicans are nearly useless in this regard.

That doesn't ruin the country. New populations keep the country fresh and revitalized.

People are people. The people entering the country illegally are no different from any other population.

Adult unauthorized immigrants are disproportionately likely to be poorly educated. Among unauthorized immigrants ages 25-64, 47% have less
than a high school education. By contrast, only 8% of U.S.-born residents
25-64 have not graduated from high school. .

Lacking education doesn't mean not smart.

Legalizing currently-illegal immigrants would fix that problem.

Would Jordan, Turkey, and Leban
on agree?

We already tried that once, and it did not work because it just encourage more highly exploitable illegals to come and we let them. Unless you can show me why it would work if we tried it again that argument fails.

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.