Brian Jones said:

Third parties have swung several elections. Ross Perot and Jill Stein and Gary Johnson did. Ralph Nader possibly did. This is an unfortunate fact, because we need more choices, but when they fuck over your side you hate them.

---

qman said:

Thermal Visions said:

Quote:

qman said:

The US will never be like Denmark, we have too many people that want to destroy the their own nation. That doesn't happen in homogeneous countries.

---

The white people at the top controlling the reins of power have done more to destroy this country than the ethnic minorities will ever be capable

---

At least the one's with the globalist mentality.

---

So you’re saying that you don’t want globalism? How do you think America would fare without selling products abroad?

Let’s retract from the world and build a wall around us. No one comes in and no one leaves
I can’t even take y’all seriously anymore

---

Nice strawman, economic nationalism doesn't involve not trading with other countries.

You do realize that Bernie and Warren are suggesting the same anti-globalist policies? 

I suggest you listen to Bernie on trade and immigration, myself and Bernie are on the EXACT same page on these key issues.

---

I’m not voting for anybody. One man isn’t going to change anything. The change has to come from us not them.

You didn’t answer my question,

---

We have almost a $1 trillion trade deficit each year, we're losing on trade. How about having a balance of trade?

Again, economic nationalism does NOT involve not trading with other nations.

relic said:

qman said:

[The US] we have too many people that want to destroy the (sic) their own nation.

---

You keep referring to these unnamed people who you assert "want to destroy their own country", destroy the united States.  It fits your narrative of these people being a net negative, a bad influence, bad seed.

Rather than wanting to destroy the US, it's more accurate to say that these people want to change the country.  Change doesn't sound as scary and doesn't have nearly the negative connotation which destroy does, though, because quite often change is not only good but absolutely necessary.

One of the greatest strengths of humans is the ability to quickly adapt, to change and that ability has been instrumental in our survival.  In much the same way, many people think that changing our country is critical to the survival of our country, critical if we're to once again prosper as a whole as we once did, while rebuilding the engine of our country; the middle class.

Next time you want to assert that a portion of our countrymen wish to destroy the US, consider that not only does change =/= destruction, but their desire to change the US just might be what saves the US from actual, real destruction.

---

Brian Jones said:

IDK. The Trump Supreme Court will be hurting us likely beyond my lifetime. Did Stein and Johnson make a contribution to the political landscape commensurate to that.

---

qman said:

relic said:

qman said:

[The US] we have too many people that want to destroy the (sic) their own nation.

---

You keep referring to these unnamed people who you assert "want to destroy their own country", destroy the united States.  It fits your narrative of these people being a net negative, a bad influence, bad seed.

Rather than wanting to destroy the US, it's more accurate to say that these people want to change the country.  Change doesn't sound as scary and doesn't have nearly the negative connotation which destroy does, though, because quite often change is not only good but absolutely necessary.

One of the greatest strengths of humans is the ability to quickly adapt, to change and that ability has been instrumental in our survival.  In much the same way, many people think that changing our country is critical to the survival of our country, critical if we're to once again prosper as a whole as we once did, while rebuilding the engine of our country; the middle class.

Next time you want to assert that a portion of our countrymen wish to destroy the US, consider that not only does change =/= destruction, but their desire to change the US just might be what saves the US from actual, real destruction.

---

Sure, I can assume that sending millions of good paying jobs and 60,000 companies out of the US is productive change. I can also assume allowing millions of illegals to enter the US labor market good change as well, but the results of the US middle class show otherwise. 

Anymore philosophical notions?

---

Citizen X said:

I don’t think raising tariffs on Mexico is going to help the illegal immigration. I believe it’s going to make it worse?

If Trump wanted to make new deals, his approach to this is amateur imo

Sit down like the diplomats we are and do it. What he’s doing is... I couldn’t even to try and explain it, but it ain’t good

---

relic said:

qman said:

relic said:

qman said:

[The US] we have too many people that want to destroy the (sic) their own nation.

---

You keep referring to these unnamed people who you assert "want to destroy their own country", destroy the united States.  It fits your narrative of these people being a net negative, a bad influence, bad seed.

Rather than wanting to destroy the US, it's more accurate to say that these people want to change the country.  Change doesn't sound as scary and doesn't have nearly the negative connotation which destroy does, though, because quite often change is not only good but absolutely necessary.

One of the greatest strengths of humans is the ability to quickly adapt, to change and that ability has been instrumental in our survival.  In much the same way, many people think that changing our country is critical to the survival of our country, critical if we're to once again prosper as a whole as we once did, while rebuilding the engine of our country; the middle class.

Next time you want to assert that a portion of our countrymen wish to destroy the US, consider that not only does change =/= destruction, but their desire to change the US just might be what saves the US from actual, real destruction.

---

Sure, I can assume that sending millions of good paying jobs and 60,000 companies out of the US is productive change. I can also assume allowing millions of illegals to enter the US labor market good change as well, but the results of the US middle class show otherwise. 

Anymore philosophical notions?

---

I figured this was the route you'd shift onto and knew you'd be wrong on this path, too. 


Now you're saying that the .1 of the 1% want to destroy our country.  Thats your assertion, the idea you had in mind all along when pulling the 'want to destroy their country' turd outta your butt?  Why would those fat cats who have been getting high on the american capitalism hog want to destroy the country--and along with it the system--theyve become so adept at exploiting for record profits?  The answer is they wouldn't and don't.

Stop digging and trying too hard.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Especially considering we’re the ones who destroyed the societies of the nations these people are fleeing.

---

natedawgnow said:

US citizens elect officials. Said officials enact policies that exploit
3rd world countries for their resources FOR US citizens. They stage coups and steal their
bananas.

Are you saying that US citizens are in no way responsible for what the people
they elect into office do for them? Do you feel any dissonance yet?

---