“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

[whichphilosophy]

The thread is fear mongering; I was simply clarifying that this thread is reflecting a few fanatics who are not representatives of the majority of Americans.
The Nazis want to expel all immigrants the government wants to expel illegal immigrants.

The Nazis want to pass laws that make all immigrants illegal immigrants, and then expel them; the government wants to expel illegal immigrants and is unconcerned about exactly who falls into that legal definition.

The two positions are really not dissimilar.

Remember, Belsen was an entirely lawful establishment, with the backing of both the government and the courts of the German Reich.

Lawfulness is NOT the same thing as goodness.

The Republican manifesto is very clear on this. Legal immigrants come in legally through the correct procedure. Illegal ones do not. The Laws are clear but not enforced enough. Most illegals are people seeking a better future but they are still illegal. Legal ones stay and the few illegal ones who are criminals and or terrorists should be put on trial or deported. Soft touch promises and rumours of amnesties plus ensuring a stay by giving birth has only encouraged more to enter the US illegally.


The problem is some on the left don't wish to distinguish between legal and illegal migrants and doing nothing to do with the holocaust.

Belsen is nothing to do with illegal immigration.

 

[whichphilosophy]

These are not members of the Republican Party, nor are members of the Communist party which endorsed the Democrats (Bernie Sanders) members of the Democratic Party.

Is there a point to this?

These proto-Nazis feel emboldened enough by the election of Trump to crawl out from underneath the rocks and the shadows, and you have to ask such a question?

This happens everywhere but that still doesn't render the Republicans Nazis nor the Democrats communists. As for any illegal immigrations who have committed any crimes it should be the bum's rush (perhaps after serving their sentence).

 

[Underseer]

White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect: "Hail Trump!" - The Atlantic

At YouTube as 'Hail Trump!': Richard Spencer Speech Excerpts - YouTube

He called the mainstream media by a German word, Lügenpresse ("lying press"), what the Nazis called news media that they disliked. He dismissed them as "leftist" and "cucks" (fakers), and he asked if they were really human, but instead soulless golems. Then he said that white people were the producers and the builders of the world, and that others depended on white people rather than being exploited by white people.

Makes me embarrassed to be a honky.

Molly Ivins once said about a Pat Buchanan speech in 1992 that it probably sounded better in the original German. With that in mind, I'll translate the thread's title:

Heil Trump, heil unser Volk, Sieg heil!

These are not members of the Republican Party, nor are members of the Communist party which endorsed the Democrats (Bernie Sanders) members of the Democratic Party.
Is there a point to this?

You wasted no time with the tired old strategy of using a lie to drive a tu quoque fallacy to desperately change the subject.

You know, people complain to me about the fact that I use the "liberals are just as bad" stick in so many lampoon posts, and here you are demonstrating why the lampoons are necessary.

Trump used racist language throughout the campaign to deliberately appeal to these people. He retweeted some 75 or so memes from white supremacists, including anti-Semitic ones from Nazis. If you are like most rightists, you didn't the whole time denying that Trump was doing this, even after being shown the evidence.

Now some of these white supremacists are going to be in the White House, including the chief of staff.

Your powers of delusion and denial are truly impressive.

Of course the white supremacists are celebrating. They know that you and millions of other Republicans are with them.

 

[whichphilosophy]

These are not members of the Republican Party, nor are members of the Communist party which endorsed the Democrats (Bernie Sanders) members of the Democratic Party.
Is there a point to this?

You wasted no time with the tired old strategy of using a lie to drive a tu quoque fallacy to desperately change the subject.


You know, people complain to me about the fact that I use the "liberals are just as bad" stick in so many lampoon posts, and here you are demonstrating why the lampoons are necessary.

Trump used racist language throughout the campaign to deliberately appeal to these people. He retweeted some 75 or so memes from white supremacists, including anti-Semitic ones from Nazis. If you are like most rightists, you didn't the whole time denying that Trump was doing this, even after being shown the evidence.

Now some of these white supremacists are going to be in the White House, including the chief of staff.

Your powers of delusion and denial are truly impressive.

Of course the white supremacists are celebrating. They know that you and millions of other Republicans are with them.

For the white supremacists it is political masturbation will be celebrating alone. This is not changing the subject because in the UK it's pretty much the same. The ultra right sometimes latch onto Tories and the communists and Troskyites aim for Labour.

 

[Mumbles]

White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect: "Hail Trump!" - The Atlantic

“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Spencer has popularized the term “alt-right” to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream is “a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,” and has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

At YouTube as 'Hail Trump!': Richard Spencer Speech Excerpts - YouTube

He called the mainstream media by a German word, Lügenpresse ("lying press"), what the Nazis called news media that they disliked. He dismissed them as "leftist" and "cucks" (fakers), and he asked if they were really human, but instead soulless golems. Then he said that white people were the producers and the builders of the world, and that others depended on white people rather than being exploited by white people.

Makes me embarrassed to be a honky.

Molly Ivins once said about a Pat Buchanan speech in 1992 that it probably sounded better in the original German. With that in mind, I'll translate the thread's title:

Heil Trump, heil unser Volk, Sieg heil!

Sounds about right to me. After all, what else did Trump run on?

The real issue is that so many people claim that they're nothing like that, but still voted for him, because email servers or something.

 

[Elixir]

White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect: "Hail Trump!" - The Atlantic

At YouTube as 'Hail Trump!': Richard Spencer Speech Excerpts - YouTube

He called the mainstream media by a German word, Lügenpresse ("lying press"), what the Nazis called news media that they disliked. He dismissed them as "leftist" and "cucks" (fakers), and he asked if they were really human, but instead soulless golems. Then he said that white people were the producers and the builders of the world, and that others depended on white people rather than being exploited by white people.

Makes me embarrassed to be a honky.

Molly Ivins once said about a Pat Buchanan speech in 1992 that it probably sounded better in the original German. With that in mind, I'll translate the thread's title:

Heil Trump, heil unser Volk, Sieg heil!

Sounds about right to me. After all, what else did Trump run on?

The real issue is that so many people claim that they're nothing like that, but still voted for him, because email servers or something.

How long before the white working class realizes Trump was just scamming them? That was the question that first popped into my mind on the morning of Nov 9.
I think he'll blame the lyin' libs for four years of backwards, and his faithful will believe him.
Email servers are scary shit.

 

[laughing dog]

These proto-Nazis feel emboldened enough by the election of Trump to crawl out from underneath the rocks and the shadows, and you have to ask such a question?

This happens everywhere but that still doesn't render the Republicans Nazis nor the Democrats communists.

What is driving this straw man?

As for any illegal immigrations who have committed any crimes it should be the bum's rush (perhaps after serving their sentence).

By definition, an illegal immigrant has committed the crime of illegally entering the country. Are you seriously proposing the US has the resources (let alone the will) to identify, round up and deport every illegal immigrant?

 

[bilby]

The Nazis want to pass laws that make all immigrants illegal immigrants, and then expel them; the government wants to expel illegal immigrants and is unconcerned about exactly who falls into that legal definition.

The two positions are really not dissimilar.

Remember, Belsen was an entirely lawful establishment, with the backing of both the government and the courts of the German Reich.

Lawfulness is NOT the same thing as goodness.

The Republican manifesto is very clear on this. Legal immigrants come in legally through the correct procedure. Illegal ones do not. The Laws are clear but not enforced enough. Most illegals are people seeking a better future but they are still illegal. Legal ones stay and the few illegal ones who are criminals and or terrorists should be put on trial or deported. Soft touch promises and rumours of amnesties plus ensuring a stay by giving birth has only encouraged more to enter the US illegally.


The problem is some on the left don't wish to distinguish between legal and illegal migrants and doing nothing to do with the holocaust.

Belsen is nothing to do with illegal immigration.

But it was. Jews were legally defined as non-citizens of the Reich; So the law required that they be removed from the Reich. As no other countries would take them, the answer was Belsen (and other similar facilities).

All very logical, and completely 100% legal.

 

[Arctish]

White Nationalists Salute the President-Elect: "Hail Trump!" - The Atlantic

At YouTube as 'Hail Trump!': Richard Spencer Speech Excerpts - YouTube

He called the mainstream media by a German word, Lügenpresse ("lying press"), what the Nazis called news media that they disliked. He dismissed them as "leftist" and "cucks" (fakers), and he asked if they were really human, but instead soulless golems. Then he said that white people were the producers and the builders of the world, and that others depended on white people rather than being exploited by white people.

Makes me embarrassed to be a honky.

Molly Ivins once said about a Pat Buchanan speech in 1992 that it probably sounded better in the original German. With that in mind, I'll translate the thread's title:

Heil Trump, heil unser Volk, Sieg heil!

A "cuck" isnt'a faker. A "cuck" is a "cuckold". A man who can't control his woman. The fact that that is an insult he uses is troubling.

Cuckservative is an alt-right term for someone who self-identifies as a conservative but doesn't meet the criteria set by the white supremacist neo-Nazi faction that rallied around Breitbart News and Donald Trump.

 

[bilby]

A "cuck" isnt'a faker. A "cuck" is a "cuckold". A man who can't control his woman. The fact that that is an insult he uses is troubling.

Cuckservative is an alt-right term for someone who self-identifies as a conservative but doesn't meet the criteria set by the white supremacist neo-Nazi faction that rallied around Breitbart News and Donald Trump.

Indeed; but the prefix 'cuck' refers to a man who hasn't the courage or the power to prevent people from taking what is his, and specifically derives from 'cuckold', meaning a man who is too weak to prevent his wife from fucking other men (or to prevent other men from fucking his wife). In particular it references the cultural myth that black men prey on white women, who are all convinced by and fascinated by the 'fact' that black men have huge genitals; and that white men must constantly be vigilant and ready to use deadly force if they are to protect the wife who is their most valuable property. This is the basis for the lynching of black men for the 'offense' of making eye contact with a white woman, that was oh-so-popular in the deep south before the civil rights movement.

It contains a whole bunch of really ugly undertones - women as property, strength as the only important virtue, and deep racism. Anyone who uses the term as an epithet can be unequivocally identified as a moronic misogynistic arsehole, and is almost certainly a racist moronic misogynistic areshole.

'Cuck' contains a similar level of offensiveness to 'Nigger', and like 'Nigger', its use tells you a lot about the person who has chosen to use the word.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's clear that a number of posters will be very disappointed when the goose stepping brown shirts don't materialize when Herr Trumpf takes over. LOL.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This happens everywhere but that still doesn't render the Republicans Nazis nor the Democrats communists.

What is driving this straw man?

As for any illegal immigrations who have committed any crimes it should be the bum's rush (perhaps after serving their sentence).

By definition, an illegal immigrant has committed the crime of illegally entering the country. Are you seriously proposing the US has the resources (let alone the will) to identify, round up and deport every illegal immigrant?

In principle illegal immigrants can legally be deported for illegal entry. However the emphasis is on violent criminals, drug pushers thieves and so forth. It's costly to deport everyone in a short while. Prevention or reducing the illegal entries will be a better solution.

 

[laughing dog]

What is driving this straw man?

As for any illegal immigrations who have committed any crimes it should be the bum's rush (perhaps after serving their sentence).

By definition, an illegal immigrant has committed the crime of illegally entering the country. Are you seriously proposing the US has the resources (let alone the will) to identify, round up and deport every illegal immigrant?

In principle illegal immigrants can legally be deported for illegal entry. However the emphasis is on violent criminals, drug pushers thieves and so forth. It's costly to deport everyone in a short while. Prevention or reducing the illegal entries will be a better solution.

If you are referring to Mr. Trump's "policy", we don't know on who they are planning on focusing on. All he has said is "illegal immigrants who commit crime" which, by definition, is any illegal immigrant.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Republican manifesto is very clear on this. Legal immigrants come in legally through the correct procedure. Illegal ones do not. The Laws are clear but not enforced enough. Most illegals are people seeking a better future but they are still illegal. Legal ones stay and the few illegal ones who are criminals and or terrorists should be put on trial or deported. Soft touch promises and rumours of amnesties plus ensuring a stay by giving birth has only encouraged more to enter the US illegally.


The problem is some on the left don't wish to distinguish between legal and illegal migrants and doing nothing to do with the holocaust.

Belsen is nothing to do with illegal immigration.

But it was. Jews were legally defined as non-citizens of the Reich; So the law required that they be removed from the Reich. As no other countries would take them, the answer was Belsen (and other similar facilities).

All very logical, and completely 100% legal.

Depriving people of their citizenship of a country they were part of bears no relationship to preventing illegal migrants from entering the country.
There is nothing logical, rational or legal (under international law) regarding the deprivation of citizenship as you described. However it is legal to prevent illegal entry and to deport illegal entrants who are already in the host country.

- - - Updated - - -

What is driving this straw man?

As for any illegal immigrations who have committed any crimes it should be the bum's rush (perhaps after serving their sentence).

By definition, an illegal immigrant has committed the crime of illegally entering the country. Are you seriously proposing the US has the resources (let alone the will) to identify, round up and deport every illegal immigrant?

In principle illegal immigrants can legally be deported for illegal entry. However the emphasis is on violent criminals, drug pushers thieves and so forth. It's costly to deport everyone in a short while. Prevention or reducing the illegal entries will be a better solution.

If you are referring to Mr. Trump's "policy", we don't know on who they are planning on focusing on. All he has said is "illegal immigrants who commit crime" which, by definition, is any illegal immigrant.

That does not appear to be his intent as he focused on a percentage.

 

[bilby]

But it was. Jews were legally defined as non-citizens of the Reich; So the law required that they be removed from the Reich. As no other countries would take them, the answer was Belsen (and other similar facilities).

All very logical, and completely 100% legal.

Depriving people of their citizenship of a country they were part of bears no relationship to preventing illegal migrants from entering the country.
There is nothing logical, rational or legal (under international law) regarding the deprivation of citizenship as you described. However it is legal to prevent illegal entry and to deport illegal entrants who are already in the host country.

And yet you yourself made quite clear that having a child should not allow an 'illegal' immigrant to remain in the country. So which are you advocating - deporting citizens who are also children; Deporting parents without their children; or taking citizenship from children whose parents are not citizens?

All three options are despicable.

And you STILL argue that 'it is legal to prevent illegal entry and to deport illegal entrants who are already in the host country', as if what is legal and what is moral is synonymous. Of course it is LEGAL. The question is, is it JUST? Someone who entered the country as an 'illegal' immigrant at the age of three, who had no say in his parent's decision to bring him to the US from Mexico, and who is now in his forties, has a home, a job, and a family, should (according to your legality argument) be stripped of everything and sent to a country he knows nothing of. And you are fine with that, because to do that to him is legal.

Legal it may be. But you cannot say that it is fair, just, or moral. So who gives a shit whether it is legal?

 

[fromderinside]

Traditionally we are very proud of our open borders. Change of border has been part of that of which we are proud. Texicans took Texas from Mexico with US aid and abetting. US swindled Mexico for the territory of New Mexico, Arizona, most of California and Nevada. US got the Louisiana territory for a pittance, bullied GB for the Oregon territory with such as 54.40 or fight over a bunch of pigs in the Puget Sound, and Paid Russia 5 million for Alaska and rights to the Oregon Territory.

So now claiming Mexicans whose families may have lived in former Mexican lands for illegally entering the US is more than a bit two faced. Putting original Americans on reservations from what was left of Indian nations as we took land from the Atlantic to the Pacific is a stain as large as slavery.

With this stellar past is comes as no shock that there are mixed feelings in the US with claims partly native Americans are 'illegally' inside our borders. It is slanderous to say they are murderers, rapists, thieves when what they are are poor people finding useful lives in jobs That FA white Male american won't bother to take.

Legality has nothing to do with it. The parsing of territory taken by force and deceit is no legal standing beyond what is written to suppress innocents. So I challenge even one saying "legal it may be".

I'm sure you are as proud of your government, bilby, as I am of mine when yours makes law forbidding landing on your shores from places not white.

The options posted by whichphilosophy to which you post opposition are not options at all they are blackmail and governmental Barbary.

Let's face it America is a living out of the Utopian Dream of the power hungry white arseholes from Europe over the past four centuries covered over with the makeup of constitution and 'freedon'.

Again. Happy Holldays.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A "cuck" isnt'a faker. A "cuck" is a "cuckold". A man who can't control his woman. The fact that that is an insult he uses is troubling.

So you think a woman is property to be controlled??

 

[repoman]

 

[repoman]

Cuckservative is an alt-right term for someone who self-identifies as a conservative but doesn't meet the criteria set by the white supremacist neo-Nazi faction that rallied around Breitbart News and Donald Trump.

Indeed; but the prefix 'cuck' refers to a man who hasn't the courage or the power to prevent people from taking what is his, and specifically derives from 'cuckold', meaning a man who is too weak to prevent his wife from fucking other men (or to prevent other men from fucking his wife). In particular it references the cultural myth that black men prey on white women, who are all convinced by and fascinated by the 'fact' that black men have huge genitals; and that white men must constantly be vigilant and ready to use deadly force if they are to protect the wife who is their most valuable property. This is the basis for the lynching of black men for the 'offense' of making eye contact with a white woman, that was oh-so-popular in the deep south before the civil rights movement.

It contains a whole bunch of really ugly undertones - women as property, strength as the only important virtue, and deep racism. Anyone who uses the term as an epithet can be unequivocally identified as a moronic misogynistic arsehole, and is almost certainly a racist moronic misogynistic areshole.

'Cuck' contains a similar level of offensiveness to 'Nigger', and like 'Nigger', its use tells you a lot about the person who has chosen to use the word.

I should note that a Jewish person who is both white and Jewish may not be considered a cuck for supporting immigration of non whites and muslims in particular in the US and Europe so long as he supports Israel staying as Jewish as it is now. But a white gentile who supports that jewish person's support of US/European immigration would be a cuck. This is the Cuck song, left over from gamergate that I am including for educational purposes:



Note this was made in August 2015 and at the end it calls Trump the Cuck Slayer. Also at 1:28 he has a picture of Mike Pence as a cuck. It is offensive so don't watch it if that is the case.

The alt-right theory is that Jewish people have a cohesive culture and are encouraged to self-associate with none of social stigma stigma gentile whites face for doing the same.

My grandfather said that when he was a stock broker and had a jewish partner Jewish customers would refuse to do business with him (when the secretary told them he was available) and say they wanted the jewish broker - literally "The Jewish One". Funny stuff.

 

[LordKiran]

A "cuck" isnt'a faker. A "cuck" is a "cuckold". A man who can't control his woman. The fact that that is an insult he uses is troubling.

So you think a woman is property to be controlled??

No he doesn't. Further he hasn't said anything to suggest otherwise.