The Political Discussion Thread

[Falcon Horus]

at least there's no death penalty in civilized Europe & europeans elect their leaders

Not entirely sure about our level of civilization though... it's questionable as of late.

[SoulReaver]

Not entirely sure about our level of civilization though... it's questionable as of late.

since there's no absolute reference we can only talk relatively of course

comparing western europe (especially north-western) to just about any other part of the globe will always be a favourable comparison for europe

[Annoyed]

Not entirely sure about our level of civilization though... it's questionable as of late.

Of Late?

[Coco Pops]

And what do you call the death penalty?
Or, the limitation of rights?

Human rights are constantly being violated in a lot more countries than Saudi Arabia.

I give you human rights' violations in Australia, or the United States from the 2015 report.
Couldn't find Belgium in the list of countries but I'm sure we commit violations as well.

And I agree totally

[Coco Pops]

Yea who needs rights. Its crap like this that makes me NEVER understand how in anyway shape or form we can consider them our allies..

Because we are addicted to the OIL that they provide.......

[aretood2]

Yes, it doesn't factor at all, which is why the Republicans felt it was nessesary to invite the Prime Minister of Israel to speak to congress about how important Israel is?
But yeah, it's a "minor factor, hardly spoken about"
Is that like when the news covers the Republican pandering to Israel as a "important step" in becoming the Republican candidate, or how important the "evangelical vote" is?
Please Tood.

It's a debate, but biblical prophecy isn't a factor. And Evangelicals are hardly the only pro Israel voters here. It's a big country, and even evangelicals aren't a monolithic block either. Besides, they seem to like a fake like Trump over someone who actually reads the Bible like Carson...or any other of the presidential hopefuls.

So the US wanted to "own them" first?

It's what I said, no? It was either us or the Russians. Though in hind sight, they wouldn't have gone communist.

I will not argue with your reasoning here. Yes, Israel was supported to be a military stop gap in the M-E. In essence, they were USED. The US did not support them for religious or "guilty" reasons at all. When I speak of people in the US -now- supporting Israel, I speak to the fact that the Republican Party has changed the entire notion of conservative to not mean "fiscally conservative" or "small government" conservative as it once stood for, but -morally and socially conservative-. This change was fuelled by the introduction, nay embrace of the "moral majority" as represented by the socially conservative evangelicals who injected religious morals into the political process, despite the separation of church and state.
Even the Tea party, which was obstensibly created to return "conservative government values" could not escape the now ever-present touch of the religious right.

However the Religious right is more concerned with social issues right now than Israel to be honest. Unless you go really right where you get the prophetic types. But then you get into hardcore Trump worshipers. However, there always was a large social component to conservatism. You might be thinking of Libertarianism.

To a degree, yes. I don't think anyone has a right to land based on biblical claims. I also know that Jeruselam and it's surrounds were not the only choice put forward when establishing a Jewish homeland.

Yet, everyone has done so. Well, except for the mongols. (That was a reference to a Youtube channel).

If I could find a Caananite, would they have the right to kick the Jews out because they were there before them?
That's the question I keep asking myself here Tood.
If my claim is historical, should the older historical people be allowed to kick you out?
If my claim is Religious, can I find a follower of an older religion and kick you out?

It depends. If you mean if we find a more ancient original inhabitant, well...I also ask myself what I would do if there were enough Native Americans who wanted the North Eastern US back. It would be a mess, but there aren't many left. However there were millions of Jews despite the world's best efforts to kill them all.

If you mean an actual Caananite, well, once again. "Scientifically"...Womble is one, so that is a moot point. But I am sure you meant what I responded to above.

From a scientific perspective, Jews are not a "race", they are tribes that share a religious belief structure.
Ask yourself this.
Why is Egypt not the "historical homeland" of the Jewish people?
It's where the tribes come from, it's where they united, it is the home of their greatest prophet, and it is where they were freed from slavery.
Israel holds -no historical consequence- for the Jewish people -in terms of origin-, but it holds a great, great deal of religious consequence for them as it is the "promised land".

Are you saying this from a purely historical evidenced based assumption or from a religious one? Because historically, that's a moot point too. Given that they would have absorbed and incorporated the Canaanite peoples. From the religious side, they weren't from Egypt. Their patriarch was an immigrant to Canaan.

Either way, it does hold extreme historical consequence for Jews post Egyptian Exodus that shouldn't be discounted. It is what they base their own narrative on. And asking a people to abandon their cultural narrative is a bit...much if you ask me. Even if they were offered a depopulated California (including Baja California in Mexico) they still wouldn't take it. There is no cultural call to that land. Constructing a society in such a fashion just doesn't work. Even your ancestors had to be forced against their will to live in Australia. The only way to make that work would be to literally force an entire generation or two to move there.

Unless you're suggesting that Jews post-holocaust should have been forced to move to Australia or what have you, there really is no real concrete point to make.

Which argument do you think holds more weight for them?

The one that an entire cultural image and narrative is based on. Society is a construct, we behave and are motivated within that construct as a people. To expect otherwise is to expect superhuman attitudes and motivations.

To put it simply, the world and history don't always have clear villains or victims (This is why everyone loves talking about WWII. The Nazis were simply evil). It is unfortunate that people moved in during the Jewish Diaspora. It's also unfortunate that the French took back Normandy from the English. It's unfortunate that the Moores were removed from Southern Spain by the Castilians and the Aragonese. It's sad that the Aztecs displaced their rivals from Central Mexico just as it is sad that the Spanish did the same to them. It's unfortunate that the Latin citizens of Hispaniola were displaced by the Visigoths just as they too were displaced. It happens, and this was a modern example of a people retaking their cultural homeland. It was an untenable situation. Both sides could have done better in their own ways of dealing with the events. But outside forces made that impossible.

And again, you give me what Hillary is evil for in your opinion, and not what makes Trump less evil?

He says racist stuff...erm...I mean...he says it how it is!

Trump declared all Mexicans (legal and illegal) rapists (some might be good, he's not sure). He insulted just about every person who he didn't agree with (journalists, women). He made a mention to ridicule a few disabled journalists. He's a bigot, a racist and he loves to discriminate. Quite women unfriendly, if you ask me, and men unfriendly too. He wants to build a wall on the border, exclude every Muslim from entering the country -- the database was an idea --, keep Guantanamo open for "bad guys", thinks waterboarding is a good interrogation technique, and promises every opponent who wants to hear the right words he'll roll back marriage equality cause why give out equal benefits to spouses right. Or Obamacare, cause affordable healthcare, who needs that? No American needs that.

Actually he likes Obamacare...sort of. He keeps contradicting himself. But eitherway, "Conservatives" don't like Obamacare so it just makes it more confusing as to why people like him...oh right. The racism. They love that....I mean the "No more Political Correctness" aspect of him.

In fact, a local newspaper called him America's Putin - I think that's quite honestly an insult to Putin.

He is the American Putin, times 10 to the fifth power.

[Coco Pops]

This will stir up tensions in our region.

http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-po...26-gn4ttc.html

[Gatefan1976]

I have written 3 responses to this so far, and every time I have deleted them, but I have to admit, this is grating on me, not because of what you say, so much as this post has crossed the line into personal.
So, -allow- me to set a few records straight about -me- and how -I- feel.
[quote]

That could explain it... if you weren't so often the first to bring it up.

This is untrue. I bring up religion, yes, I hack away at monotheism, yes, but I DO NOT single out Judaism in those posts. If I -do- bring up -ISRAEL- it is due to the fact that the topic has turned to Israel.
So no, I don't "just bring it up", so kindly go back and READ what I have written.

I did, yes. The likelyhood of India -Pakistan nuclear conflict is far higher than between Israel and... well, anybody.

The issue is not Israel doing stupid stuff, it is how far other nations, especially the US will go to -protect- Israel from such threats.

I would've thought that the India - Pakistan conflict would be of higher concern, objectively speaking, but that's not the case with you, is it?

A nuclear exchange in the region would help neither side as they would both be adversely effected. A conventional war is of concern, and I don't like it, but to be brutally honest, it will not affect Australia. The US going to war, be it conventional or nuclear -will-.
Israel is a country that the US -will- go to war over, and it will drag us into it as well, so forgive me for caring about it a little bit more than some other countries. You mistakenly think it is because I "have an issue", where in reality, it is no more than the basest form of enlightened self interest.

I mean Jammu and Kashmir, obviously.

OK.

Because you had another hobby horse to ride

You mean guns?
I let that horse run off, because despite what you believe, I am not anti gun, I am anti stupid with guns.
They are not the same thing, sorry.

Don't quite see how that amounted to defending, or MG's comment to attacking, but never mind.

You are not the only one to notice posting history, but nevermind.

But you consistently misinterprete the actual reasons and resist - with a no small amount of desperation - when these reasons are pointed out. The reasons why Israel was founded where it was had nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with history and Jewish national identity. Yet you keep going 3000 years back.

Then tell me, what are the "actual reasons"?
No religion involved.

Oh but there is. Nothing but.

What nations feel about Israel, and what they are willing to do to protect Israel is not whimsy, it is an objective fact. When that nation in question is the "independent anchor" of Western Ideology, and who's decisions will effect not only itself, but it's allies, it's not whimsy.
America will protect Israel, and it will drag other nations into any decision regarding Israel.
Again, not whimsy, enlightened self interest.

Again, yes. If you feel entitled to decide where other people belong and where they don't, it's only a matter of time before you decide that they don't belong where you have originally assigned them, either.

Ok.
THIS is what -really- annoys me in this whole situation.
Just because I disagree with the creation of Modern Israel does not mean I am looking for a way to "get you out". As far as I am concerned, it has happened, and that's the end of it. What you do with it now is all on you folks. I will not, and will never say "you need to go now", it is your home now.
Stay there for as long as you like.

That defense would've worked if you didn't seem to believe that it's relevant everywhere at any time.

There's a reason why this thread, ostensibly about politics, keeps turning to discussion of religion. And if you review it, it invariably starts with either you or Falcon Horus bringing it in.

Really?
I think you should look at it a bit harder if that is your answer.

You don't go out of your way to research Israel either. You know woefully little. Yet it never stopped you.

I have -one- specific beef, and I keep it to -one- specific beef.

You hate religion, so long as it's mainstream first-world religion. Anything exotic, syncretic and outright manufactured is not on your hate list.

Excuse me?
Your religion is manufactured.
I'll let you in on a secret too, they ALL are.
I loathe -monotheism-, because it is based on a binary system of thinking, yet thinks it can dictate the greyest area of human development, thoughts and feelings.

Which would amount to arguing that might makes right, and the latest ethnic cleansing is what determines legal ownership. Which is an argument you aren't willing to make elsewhere, and therefore I dismiss it as dishonest.

Might does make right, but that does not mean I like it, or support it.
This is the mistake people all over the world make, that people that do not like a system have no understanding of that system. I can assure you, people -do- understand the system, probably better than those who support the system in question.

Since you're incapable, once again, of following a simple line of reasoning, I will rephrase; the Jewish residence in the Land of Israel, from the moment the Jews were established as a nation and up until the creation of modern Israel, was never completely interrupted, and at all times there was a movement of return.

Yet, you are quiet on the return of a native North American, South American, African or Australian nation, and they held their "land" for far longer than the mere 3-5 thousand years of your existence.
In case that is beyond your grasp, everything you accuse me of, you do in spades, but do not care about because it does not affect your home.

Obviously, there couldn't be Jews before there were Jews, but for the last 3000 years, there were Jews in Jerusalem at any given time, and most of the time they were the majority.

Untrue.
For the majority of the C.E., Jews were a minority in Jerusalem, and it is not until the late 19th century that there was a resurgence.

You've never admitted as much, but my point is that when discussing Israel, you use standards you don't use elsewhere, you're willing to use the kind of arguments that you would find outrageous elsewhere (see above about ownership of territory), whether you consciously acknowledge it or not. I've been trying to get you to reflect on that, but you keep taking it as an assault.

Has it -ever- occoured to you that I am trying to make you think as well?
Your "above argument about ownership" is based on a projection on me, that I would try to take your land of you now if it was "inconvenient", and that is simply not true. You have it now, end of discussion. Just because I don't like -how- you got it, does not mean I will try to take it away. That time in history has gone.

I don't think you do.

I don't think you think.

Again, you're failing to adequately read a simple statement.

There is no historical evidence of that mass slaughter you keep talking about. There is, however, a fair bit of evidence that the Jews were, in fact, an outgrowth of the Canaanites, and that the Canaanite language was an archaic form of Hebrew. In other words, the Jews did not displace the "original owners" but evolved from the original owners.

So, you have no religious ownership, very good.
You have no historic claim either.
You were a offshoot, of a branch, that lived there, and no matter how much you liked the family, home, you got evicted. I don't care how much you wanted to go back, you lost it, and have no more right to it than anyone else.

[Gatefan1976]

It's a debate, but biblical prophecy isn't a factor. And Evangelicals are hardly the only pro Israel voters here. It's a big country, and even evangelicals aren't a monolithic block either. Besides, they seem to like a fake like Trump over someone who actually reads the Bible like Carson...or any other of the presidential hopefuls.

They like a fake like Trump because he runs the panderdome better than anyone. The fact he is lying to them does not even enter into the equation because he -says- the right things, and their heads are too full of junk to even think otherwise. Trump is telling them "it's all real, and I believe you", and that's enough.

It's what I said, no? It was either us or the Russians. Though in hind sight, they wouldn't have gone communist.

Probably not, but they would have never gone "red" anyway, so bit of a moot point.

However the Religious right is more concerned with social issues right now than Israel to be honest. Unless you go really right where you get the prophetic types. But then you get into hardcore Trump worshipers. However, there always was a large social component to conservatism. You might be thinking of Libertarianism.

No, I am thinking post Reagan, Jerry Falwell levels of "social conservatism".
Remember, the GOP is the party that supported the suffragette movement, the Black movement, and the dismanteling of institutional slavery, they were the socially progressive party.
Past Reagan however, the religious right has dominated the GOP in thinking. Those in power on the right will do nothing to reign in -their- level of power to curtail their own benefits, but they -will- do anything they can to "look good"
That's not to say the left would not either, but the left does not use small government as a political "plank", nor does it use religion beyond what it feels it must.

Yet, everyone has done so. Well, except for the mongols. (That was a reference to a Youtube channel).

Yes, but what makes one claim "special"?

It depends. If you mean if we find a more ancient original inhabitant, well...I also ask myself what I would do if there were enough Native Americans who wanted the North Eastern US back. It would be a mess, but there aren't many left. However there were millions of Jews despite the world's best efforts to kill them all.

That's the question Tood.
IF there were enough people, would you want to see America returned to it's native inhabitants?
I don't see it happening, what is done is done, but let me ask another question.
IF one tribe got the support of Russia, and no one supported the other, would it be OK for the supported tribe to attack the other?
Would it be OK for the supported tribe to bring in other nations as well?

If you mean an actual Caananite, well, once again. "Scientifically"...Womble is one, so that is a moot point. But I am sure you meant what I responded to above.

As Womble is from Russia, I would venture he is Ashkenazi, but "scientifically", only 3 "races" exist within the human genome, Caucazoid, Mongaloid, and Negroid.

Are you saying this from a purely historical evidenced based assumption or from a religious one? Because historically, that's a moot point too. Given that they would have absorbed and incorporated the Canaanite peoples. From the religious side, they weren't from Egypt. Their patriarch was an immigrant to Canaan.

No, what I am saying is that they are not a "race" any more than "Anglican" is a race. Historically, they were just another people, who called themselves a word.
As to the religion, yes, I agree it holds significance, but when it comes to religion, you cannot pick the "good from the bad", it is what it is, Good and Bad. The Bible holds that the story is "we came in and kicked people out", a story you should be all too familiar with. If you are not claiming that mantle, nor accepting what goes along with that mantle, there is no religious "justification" for their actions. If it is just historical however, then why not fight for -all- historical claims?
"we were here, and we have always been here in some degree" does not stop anyone, nor does it justify anyone from doing things. A few hundred years ago, Jerusalem (indeed the entire region) was majority Muslim, America was mostly "animist", as was Australia. How far do you think those claims will fly?

Either way, it does hold extreme historical consequence for Jews post Egyptian Exodus that shouldn't be discounted. It is what they base their own narrative on. And asking a people to abandon their cultural narrative is a bit...much if you ask me.

Were your people not asked, nay FORCED to do the same?
Were not the Aboriginals -forced- to do so as well?
My question is, and will remain, what makes the Jewish people "special" enough that their claim is respected -and defended- by other nations, but even more compelling claims are ignored?
Do not the people of South America have a far more continuous and unchallenged claim?
North America?
Australia?
New Zealand?
Africa?

The question is not "Are they worthy", it's "why are they more worthy when other cultures have lost just as much"
Do you Ken?

Even if they were offered a depopulated California (including Baja California in Mexico) they still wouldn't take it. There is no cultural call to that land.

Is that cultural call reason enough?
That's what I want to know.

Constructing a society in such a fashion just doesn't work. Even your ancestors had to be forced against their will to live in Australia. The only way to make that work would be to literally force an entire generation or two to move there.

Umm, you do know that generations were -literally- forced to move here, and we have constructed a society that works, right?

Unless you're suggesting that Jews post-holocaust should have been forced to move to Australia or what have you, there really is no real concrete point to make.

The trump card, Post holocaust.
I'm sorry, but the Jews were not the only people the Nazi's tried to kill off, They tried to kill off -ALL- "undesirables", something that people seem to forget all too easily.
As for forcing, I never mentioned forcing anyone anywhere, but as you bring it up, should the people of the Palestinian (by modern reckoning) region have had a separate state -forced- on them?

The one that an entire cultural image and narrative is based on. Society is a construct, we behave and are motivated within that construct as a people. To expect otherwise is to expect superhuman attitudes and motivations.

No, and if I think you look at that statement, you might find why the peace process is so difficult.
Peace is no longer what we seem to want, nor forgiveness, but revenge, and if revenge is the goal of social evolution, would it not be wise of the "incumbent system" to crush it?
(there is some totalitarian thinking for you)

To put it simply, the world and history don't always have clear villains or victims (This is why everyone loves talking about WWII. The Nazis were simply evil). It is unfortunate that people moved in during the Jewish Diaspora. It's also unfortunate that the French took back Normandy from the English. It's unfortunate that the Moores were removed from Southern Spain by the Castilians and the Aragonese. It's sad that the Aztecs displaced their rivals from Central Mexico just as it is sad that the Spanish did the same to them. It's unfortunate that the Latin citizens of Hispaniola were displaced by the Visigoths just as they too were displaced. It happens, and this was a modern example of a people retaking their cultural homeland. It was an untenable situation. Both sides could have done better in their own ways of dealing with the events. But outside forces made that impossible.

I mostly agree with this.
What I disagree with is the notion that either side is "innocent", and somehow "better" then the other. It -also- grates on me this notion that "we did it alone"
No one does anything "alone", certainly not a nation.

[Womble]

This is untrue. I bring up religion, yes, I hack away at monotheism, yes, but I DO NOT single out Judaism in those posts. If I -do- bring up -ISRAEL- it is due to the fact that the topic has turned to Israel.
So no, I don't "just bring it up", so kindly go back and READ what I have written.

Like I said, your primary target is the Christian religion. Judaism gets tainted by association in your brain because you regard anything even tangentially related to the Bible as bad. Thank you for confirming.

The issue is not Israel doing stupid stuff, it is how far other nations, especially the US will go to -protect- Israel from such threats.

And by "protect" you mean "gang up on and sabotage to the best of their ability".

A nuclear exchange in the region would help neither side as they would both be adversely effected. A conventional war is of concern, and I don't like it, but to be brutally honest, it will not affect Australia. The US going to war, be it conventional or nuclear -will-.
Israel is a country that the US -will- go to war over, and it will drag us into it as well, so forgive me for caring about it a little bit more than some other countries. You mistakenly think it is because I "have an issue", where in reality, it is no more than the basest form of enlightened self interest.

A war happening in Israel has never affected Australia before (and the USA has never gone to war over Israel before, not even in 1977 when Israel came closest to being overwhelmed and the Soviet pilots flew Egyptian MiGs in combat). But a full-blown war between India and Pakistan would've had an immediate impact on all of Asia and on Australia as a country dependent on Asian resources.

You mean guns?
I let that horse run off, because despite what you believe, I am not anti gun, I am anti stupid with guns.
They are not the same thing, sorry.

You're anti- American Conservative attitude on guns. Me too, but I snipe at them mainly over the "keeping the government in check" nonsense because it's so hilariously ilogical.

Then tell me, what are the "actual reasons"?
No religion involved.

But I told you. And told you. And quoted from Theodor Herzl's "The Jewish State", which was something of a founding document of Zionism. And you've never listened.

What nations feel about Israel, and what they are willing to do to protect Israel is not whimsy, it is an objective fact.

What someone feels is an objective fact... I don't think that word means what you think it means, mate.

THIS is what -really- annoys me in this whole situation.
Just because I disagree with the creation of Modern Israel does not mean I am looking for a way to "get you out". As far as I am concerned, it has happened, and that's the end of it. What you do with it now is all on you folks. I will not, and will never say "you need to go now", it is your home now.
Stay there for as long as you like.

In other words, the only difference between you and the genocidal-minded Palestinian eliminationists is that you think that "it has happened and that's the end of it" and they think something can still be done. It's a shorter distance than you care to admit, and the line is easier crossed than you expect.

I do find it curious that you're so persistently blind to the sheer imperialistic chutzpah you're voicing here. Taken to their logical conclusion, your views mean that the only thing standing between you and calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel is the kindness of your heart.

I have -one- specific beef, and I keep it to -one- specific beef.

So who cares? You still know nothing and speak a lot. Your beef has never endured the actual research so it might well be a lot of pork for all you know.

Excuse me?
Your religion is manufactured.
I'll let you in on a secret too, they ALL are.
I loathe -monotheism-, because it is based on a binary system of thinking, yet thinks it can dictate the greyest area of human development, thoughts and feelings.

It's done fabulously for three thousand years, and we wouldn't have had the Englightenment without it, but it's not even the point. Modern paganism is so fake that it still has a paper trail; outside of appropriation of terminology, it has less to do with original pagan religions than does scientology. yet you find it acceptable in the same breath to follow it AND to bash monotheism. But that, too, is not the point. The point is that your loathing of monotheism - and this is the second time you confirm it, so thank you once again - skews your views on Israel and you're blind as a bat to it even when I put a mirror in front of you.

Might does make right, but that does not mean I like it, or support it.
This is the mistake people all over the world make, that people that do not like a system have no understanding of that system. I can assure you, people -do- understand the system, probably better than those who support the system in question.

If you accept it, you support it.

Yet, you are quiet on the return of a native North American, South American, African or Australian nation, and they held their "land" for far longer than the mere 3-5 thousand years of your existence.
In case that is beyond your grasp, everything you accuse me of, you do in spades, but do not care about because it does not affect your home.

Oh, I'm not quiet at all, but here we have to deal with your other blind spot.

You see, establishing souvereignty in one's ancestral land is different from establishing souvereignty over ALL of one's ancestral land. It's where the qualitative difference lies between a struggle for independence, which I support in all cases, and irredentism which I find abhorrent.

The Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians attempting to reestablish themselves over ALL of their ancestral lands is neither practical (their respective genocides were too thorough) nor defensible. But the Navajo Nation Reservation or the Tiwi Land Council in Australia declaring independence on their current territories would have been very hard to dismiss without abrogating the very principle of self-determination. If the Navajos or the Tiwi people ever muster a drive for self-determination, they could very well win, and personally I'd cheer.

Untrue.
For the majority of the C.E., Jews were a minority in Jerusalem, and it is not until the late 19th century that there was a resurgence.

That's inaccurate. Most pre-1800 figures come from Ottoman taxation registers which divided the land by sanjaks and did not separate Jerusalem as a single entity. The Ottoman data for "Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem" refers to the entire area south of Jaffa and Hebron all the way to the Red Sea. It also included Nazareth as an exclave (because the Ottomans made tons of money from Christian pilgrima?e and gerrymandering Nazareth into the same province as Jerusalem allowed them to issue a single permit instead of two).

Has it -ever- occoured to you that I am trying to make you think as well?

Well no, how could it have?

Your "above argument about ownership" is based on a projection on me, that I would try to take your land of you now if it was "inconvenient", and that is simply not true. You have it now, end of discussion. Just because I don't like -how- you got it, does not mean I will try to take it away. That time in history has gone.

In other words, an argument from the kindness of your heart. A whimsy.

I don't think you think.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

So, you have no religious ownership, very good.
You have no historic claim either.
You were a offshoot, of a branch, that lived there, and no matter how much you liked the family, home, you got evicted. I don't care how much you wanted to go back, you lost it, and have no more right to it than anyone else.

In other words, a hearty endorsement of "might makes right". Which you don't like but support anyway. I rest my case.

And I make no apologies for defense of reclamation of my people's stolen home.

[Falcon Horus]

Of Late?

It goes with ups and downs.

Actually he likes Obamacare...sort of. He keeps contradicting himself. But eitherway, "Conservatives" don't like Obamacare so it just makes it more confusing as to why people like him...oh right. The racism. They love that....I mean the "No more Political Correctness" aspect of him.

Every way the wind blows...

He is the American Putin, times 10 to the fifth power.

Yup, Putin's definitely going to be insulted.

As Womble is from Russia, I would venture he is Ashkenazi, but "scientifically", only 3 "races" exist within the human genome, Caucazoid, Mongaloid, and Negroid.

Sounds alien...

I'm sorry, but the Jews were not the only people the Nazi's tried to kill off, They tried to kill off -ALL- "undesirables", something that people seem to forget all too easily.

Gypsies, gays, anyone who opposed the regime, resistance fighters, ... to name a few others.

And I make no apologies for defense of reclamation of my people's stolen home.

So, ethnic cleansing it is then...

[jelgate]

I actually remember reading something where Putin endorsed Trump. But that may have been Internet rumors

[garhkal]

Because we are addicted to the OIL that they provide.......

But we get more oil from other places than just Saudi.

[Annoyed]

Hahaha..
Wonder how good Harry Reid's record on predictions is...

In an article about the SCOTUS nomination fight, Harry Reid was quoted...

“They were adamant. They said ‘no, we’re not going to do this at all,’ ” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after the meeting.

“All we want them to do is to fulfill their constitutional duty, and at this stage, they are deciding not to do that,” he added. “They’re going to wait and see what President Trump will do, I guess, as far as a nomination.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...otus-stalemate

[Annoyed]

And now, on a more serious note...
I've been saying for a long time that the reason Trump is so popular among Republican voters is that the national party has sold out, lock stock and barrel to big business.

Seems I'm not the only one with that view.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ion-from-trump

Two conservatives are warning of the GOP's plans to "steal" the nomination from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Stone, a political strategist and outspoken Trump supporter, and Martin, the president of conservative interest group Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, wrote in a piece published Tuesday in Breitbart News that the party plans to take the nomination from Trump.

"Despite a growing string of victories in the Republican primaries, the DC-Wall Street cabal that has dominated the GOP since 1988 has no intention of letting the billionaire real estate mogul be nominated," the two wrote.

Surely the party pros know that a nomination wrenched from the hands of Donald Trump would be worthless but they don’t care. The ruling elite that has dominated the party would rather have globalist Hillary Clinton than the uncontrollable nationalist Donald Trump. The idea of a president not beholden to the ruling elite is more than they can stand," the piece said.