Yeah, that's what I advocate make deals with groups. What do you think I'm talking about?
Does it matter if there is a "rift" if nothing comes of it and the enlisted will obey the officers as they always have in America and other Anglo and Northern European states.
Who said anything about retreat? Look think about it, the left managed to get the army to obey them while spitting on them and calling them baby killers. Do we really need to pay them so much if they are willing to be cucked like that?
Not the left. The globalist elitists who the "eat the rich" crowd that shouts "no borders, no nations, no deportations" hates as much as we do, just for different reasons.
As for what comes out of it, well, every time someone tries to use the army on civilian population, as long as there is a rift as opposed to unity, that someone will really have to think again. Isn't that better than the opposite situation?
>we
I'd like to remind you that the decision on how much they are paid are made by the same people who picked their flag officers to be people ok with virtue signalling.
I don't want them in charge of the military but with lower budget, i want them fired from government forever.
Yes that last thing you posted was the best thing you've ever posted!
Well, it is something that was tried and more or less worked.
Sure so long as the Israel lobby also goes to hell. As that has been more harmful to American interests.
No, we have discussed this, yes, in isolationist fringe's idea of those interests, probably, but for more realistic kinds of foreign policy factions, no.
I'm not sure if I approve of a Pole saying American citizens belong or don't belong in America that isn't your choice to make it's ours.
Also do you have any proof that the people of Dearborn are hostile to American ideals like the 1st or 2nd amendment? Besides them being "radical mooslems"?
I'm pretty damn sure that view puts you in minority on the right.
Look at their voting
records if you want to know more. Get back to me when they stop voting for Democrats.
And yes various racial minorities have supported the democrats. But you can't single out Arabs and Muslims solely, blacks have done it, Latinos, and even Asians(which is the worst imo)
Again, get some fucking numbers instead of trying to preach your fantasy vision of the world.
By numbers Blacks are the absolutely most hardcore DNC cheerleaders, so everyone can see you are trying to bullshit them. Asians are only slightly worse than Hispanics,
Muslims are slightly worse than Asians,
Hindus are almost as bad as Blacks.
Now we can look at why this is, I doubt all these groups just hate white people. So I would lean that conservatives HAVE supported some racism in the past. Obviously history is complicated but the conservative side needs more than just white men to win a popularity contest so that's why I advise doing things to get support from Asians, Arabs, Latinos if we can, and hopefully blacks if we can get them to leave the democrat plantation.
The problem is that if the conservatives are to conserve anything, the future of relations with groups that don't assimilate is set to be hostile. You can lie about it now, but it is what it is, and with Muslims, we know how the assimilation question goes, many countries have volunteered as lab rats in that, do not waste their sacrifice and learn from it.
What? No again the default state is them not being deported unless there is a crime they do. So a company can lobby to increase immigration, if they do that wages will go down. Because more people are coming in which means there will be less of a slice of the pie. This is basic common sense why do you think the Romney type Republicans are soo chummy with the left? They only care about low ta and bussiness interests.
No, the default state is that they need to have a valid visa, and the government has a policy on which visas should be granted/extended and when. Those who do not have a valid visa are legally supposed to leave or else be deported.
That's the normal, legal immigrants at least, the more humanitarian law exploiting stuff like asylum seekers needs to get curbed near completely.
Again the company owner also lobbies because it's in their interests.
For some of them. But they aren't in charge of it, they lobby those who are. And so do many other factions. Those who are in charge can tell them to fuck off.
You either support free market as an ideal or you don't. If you do then you should be libertarian because a larger economy is good.
Stop telling libertarians how to be libertarians, you are not libertarian, i don't tell you how to do your politics. No, larger economy is not good unless you own a massive company or are a politician. I'd rather live in Switzerland than in India, even though India has much larger economy.
If you don't support it as an ideal(that does not mean you hate it or anything) then you will support free market if it helps you and oppose it if it is against your interests. The common man is theoretically helped by workers acting as a collective(assuming no corruption and other shennanigans) thus might as well support the unions since I'm a common guy who does not own a company.
Only retards and neoliberals want to act as if global free market existed even though clearly it doesn't. Libertarians want to set up something as close as possible to free market in the country they run for office in, rather than give sweetheart trade deals to sweatshop lands, the latter is the neoliberal agenda.
If you look at what major unions in USA do and who do they support and in turn get supported by, only someone who supports the DNC could come to a conclusion that they help the common man.
The bussiness is not doing bussiness there it is doing bussiness here. Libertarians advocate for free market law here in our borders.
Yes. But that's where the free market is supposed to stay. Only neoliberals want to pretend that the lands beyond the border also should get the benefits of free market even though they would never really return them to their compatriots.
