Message from @nord
Discord ID: 542858787409625100
Nick Fuentes had a good bit regarding this the other day, @Undercover Academic - IL.
They might even tear it down
“We will grow old in this fight.”
just vote for Tulsi Gabbard lmao
^
literally this
BUILD WALL DEPORT THEM ALL > Oh We'll take care of DACA > 25 BILLION FOR A WALL >5 BILLION FOR A WALL > 5 BILLION FOR STEEL SLATS > 5 BILLION FOR A FENCE > 5 BILLION FOR A FENCE THAT COVERS "KEY" AREAS
what a joke
I'll stand by what I said I never implies Trump was going to build a moat of fire next week, but what would be the difference if he railed on immigration for half an hour than did nothing as well?
No amount of lip service will suffice at this point, sure.
If nothing else it keeps the issue in the public’s kind, I guess. @nord
I’m not voting GOP
And imo no one else should either
"Waht do you need 40 dollars for? I can't believe my own son is demanding 10 dollars from me! HELP POLICE THIS MADMAN IS TRYING TO STEAL 100 DOLLARS FROM ME!!"
Depends on who's running.
Until we get candidates running
Trump was our best chance at electoral, democratic changes from the top
In the short term
@Reinhard Wolff I'm super busy with school and preparing for the interview so won't have time to listen to the fireside, but, now that you're in the chat, I have a question. I have a guy asking if he'd lose his federal security clearance if he joined IE.
I just feel personally that people should weigh their options a bit more before abandoning the GOP and going full accelerationist and voting Dem. Obviously the GOP are not our guys but the alternative is only going to increase immigration at an even greater rate.
Tulsi Gabbard isn't full accelerationist, in fact, I'd argue it's not accelerationist at all
how so?
I don't see any chance of her opposing any sort of amnesty legislation that is put through Congress.
If they discovered he was in IE, yes. But if he applies under an alias and minds his opsec, he should be fine. People in IE have gotten clearances many times in the past. @Jacob
I genuinely think her policies might be better. If Trump isn't going to reduce immigration *anyway*, might as well vote for someone who is going to end foreign wars, which is a large root cause of immigration, and reduce support for Israel, which meddles in American politics @nord @Mojave Paisan - NV
@Reinhard Wolff thanks
That’s a yes? Even if they’re not contracting?
Or stop believing that voting for politicians who are not explicitly ourguys will change anything.
@Jacob Who's to say that she actually will end foreign wars? Trump said nearly the same thing and we've made very little progress in that direction
Trump shifted the overton window though
Trump was as close to us as a mainstream politician can be, and even he isn't getting anything done, either because he's incapable or unwilling.
I think unwilling
We should support people who indirectly normalize our views
@Mojave Paisan - NV I mean she actually had the balls to go and meet with Assad
I think Trump indirectly normalized our views more in 2016 than now. If we can have another 2016 for some candidate, for the sake of the 2016, then sure, I'll vote for whomever you want. But I don't believe there's going to be a magic candidate to fix anything.
The reality is I don't think tulsi will even get the nomination so maybe this is a pointless line of discussion. And indeed maybe the usefulness of trump is over after a term but I doubt anyone will successfully primary him.
Howard Schultz run is also an interesting dynamic to consider.
In other words, having another year that was empowering for our ideas the way 2016 was would be good, and if it takes another political campaign for us to rally around to make that happen, then so be it. But in that situation, the politics is the means to the end, with the end being the empowerment and boosting our morale and influence. I don't forsee any election solving our problems.
Unless, again, it's someone explicitly aligned with us.
That's the only way I'll get excited about a political candidate again.