Vote Republican? Rather Die

Shawn encourages me to vote against illegal immigration.

I encourage you, Robert, and all others to vote for the candidate opposing illegal immigration (and ideally massive immigration in general). This should be your issue because it is itself economics and a pro-poor vote. Yes, this means you could find yourself voting Republican. I just did!Disclaimer: I have voted for the D’s, R’s, and I’s in the past. Find me an anti-immigration D and I will vote for her.

Never! I will never vote for a Republican. I’m a progressive person. The only way I would ever vote for a Republican is if the Republican was more progressive than the Democrat. I don’t like illegals, but the rest of the Republican agenda is worthless. I’m a liberal like my late father. He never voted Republican in his life. I’m the same way. I’d rather die than vote Republican even one time. I agree with the Republican candidates on illegal immigration, but here in California, even the Republicans are typically pro-illegal. I disagree with Democrats in general on illegals, but that’s not enough to make me switch parties. Sorry. Illegal immigration is one of the few things that I am rightwing on. Opposing illegals will be the only way that these Republicans are for the poor. The whole rest of their project will harm the poor. My politics is the same as that of Liberation Theologists – advancing the interests of the poor, low income and middle class in the US. For that, it’s always necessary to vote Democrat and against Republicans, because Democrats are always more for the poor, low income and middle class than Republicans are. If I can’t stand the Democrat and I know he’s going to win anyway, I will throw my vote away and vote Peace and Freedom or Green. I’ve been told that as a radical, I should never vote Democrat. Instead I should throw my vote away on some stupid Left 3rd party or sect. Sorry, homey don’t play that. The Tea Partiers are right in a way. Most Left radicals in the US – socialists, Communists, etc – vote Democrat. Many are even active in Democratic Party politics in a wing of the party called the left wing of the Democratic Party. However, most Democrats are not actually radicals. But I think quite a few Democrats would actually support social democracy, so many to most of them are may well be socialists in that sense. But the deep structure of the party – the DNC wing that actually elects candidate, Obama, Clinton and the rest – are even opposed to social democracy, so it’s not right to call them socialists.

Please follow and like us:

35 thoughts on “Vote Republican? Rather Die”

  1. At what point would you stop being progressive? How much progress do we have to make before you’ve had your fill of progress? Is there an end goal there?

    1. It’s hard to say. If Team Progressive ever got to the point where they were like the Khmer Rogue or North Korea, I would have to vote for someone more conservative. 😉
      I’ve never actually had a choice between voting for a crazy Left person and a reasonable or more conservative Left person. In that case, I would vote for the more conservative.
      It kind of pisses me off that you keep calling me a Commie because almost all Commies hate my guts and call me racist, fascist, reactionary and Nazi due to my HBD and race realist stances. And I was thrown out of the local Communist Party chapter for advocating social democracy, “supporting capitalism,” and “not being a revolutionary.” They hated social democracy and said, “That’s just capitalism.” In that case, then I guess I support capitalism. 😉
      I mean, you call me a Commie but the Commies hate me and threw me out of their group. Also, I’m a liberal, and Commies mostly hate liberals. They say liberals are rightwingers. I’m a liberal and a socialist. Recall there is a lot of tension between the Socialist International and the Comintern. They even fought wars against each other, for instance, in Peru. I support the Socialist International. Go look them up.

      1. I never “called” you a Commie. I’ve been meaning to read through your blog in order to get a better feel for your position. For instance, in your About section you say that you are a member of the Communist Party USA (does Miley Cyrus sing party chants?).

        1. Yeah, I’m still a member, but they threw me out of the local chapter, and I’m not active at all. I just never renounced my membership. I’m also very active in the Democratic Party and I’m active in the Green Party too. I’m a pretty shitty Communist, that’s what the truth is.
          Plus, no one quite knows what the CPUSA will do. Your argument that they will restrict freedom is not really true since they have long supported Bill of Rights Socialism (read up on Gus Hall). Plus their economic project is a very long term type of thing. In their internal party theoretical organ, that I get sometime, they were supporting the Chinese “socialism with Chinese characteristics” that some of you call capitalism. I suppose most hardliners would call them a “revisionist” party. I bet if they ever got power, they would moderate even further. They’re basically Eurocommies. You know what a Eurocommunist is?
          I do like the Belarus and Venezuelan models though. 🙂
          Most Commies hate me and say I’m not one of them. Instead, I’m this evil thing called a “liberal.” Commies don’t like liberals (Democratic Party types). Are you aware of that?
          I’m not sure how much you know about the Left and our internal divisions.
          Unfortunately, most of the reasonable critiques of Communism (not your over the top stuff – the stuff that makes sense) are quite accurate. The Communist model has serious deficiencies and in most cases, over decades, it collapses.
          My attitude about capitalism is that I hate it, but I also hate death and disease. All three are necessary evils, no? Capitalism is evil, but it’s necessary and it works. Communism is morally upright, but it doesn’t work.

  2. I thought to wanted white American demographic decline in the US so it will bring about “social democracy”?
    So why are you against immigration even illegal that would bring it about?
    I hope there is a candidate in the US supported and financed by Mexican drug lords who brings in millions of Mexicans into the US and makes the Southern US a quasi Mexican state run by drug lords and there militias.
    Give the US there own Kosovo.

    1. Illegal immigration is a bad thing. I’m opposed to it. No matter if it brings about social democracy sooner, the cure ain’t worth the treatment.
      I hope there is a candidate in the US supported and financed by Mexican drug lords who brings in millions of Mexicans into the US and makes the Southern US a quasi Mexican state run by drug lords and there militias.
      If you lived here, you would not say that.

      1. @Robert Lindsay
        For what they did to the Serbs (genocide, torture, ethnic cleansing, terrorism) and have created overthere based on a mountain of now debunked lies if it meant destruction of my state and my own safety if I where a US citizen I would still support him.
        The worse the better.
        If there was a pro Muslim immigration candidate here in Britain I would vote for him.

  3. Also, the poor are poor for a reason. If you follow your liberation theology and gather resources for the poor through redistribution you’re shrinking the area of the pie from which everyone draws resources. Capitalists lose, some of the poor who become powerful in the new redistribution (i.e. community organizers and feminsits) gain power, the majority of the masses lose as well because they aren’t smart enough to create jobs for themselves or make their own way without someone providing a job and capital for them to work with.
    You want egalitarianism, but that comes at the expense of quality of life. So that everyone is equal you are willing to accept that everyone is equally poor.
    This becomes an epistemological battle in that we are pitting the idea of socialism or social democracy against a relatively free economic model. People can choose for themselves what they want, and it seems that they usually choose economic freedom over egalitarianism.

  4. Bob doesn’t realize -or he’s simply playing a part–that bragging about voting consistently for either of the corrupt two parties rather than for (choose your party)
    an alternative party, is also Bob conceding he’s not cutting edge.
    That is to say, in another way, when the U.S. (or the geographical area within its borders) finally gets its house in respectable order, after the collapse, it will not be done by either of the two corrupt and moribund parties.
    Most of those activists in power or vying for it by whatever means at that time will be bragging how they were voting for alternative parties when the less astute or more set in their ways were still grabbing onto, in Bob’s case, the Democratic Party, as Linus grabs onto his security blanket.

  5. “People can choose for themselves what they want , and it seems that they usually choose economic freedom over egalitarianism” bullshit. People vote for egaliarianism. Even in Russia the largest opposition party is the Communist Party. The people of Swden, Canada, Belarus and Europe, all vote for socialist healthcare, public education, and a safety net. Economic freedom?!?! Why dont more people vote for the Libertarian Party then? Yeah, lets abolish all public schools and privatize roads hooray!

  6. oh, and Hans-Herman Hoppe, one of the leading libertarian “intellectuals” wants to privatize the military too! What a doofus!

      1. Isn’t the US a private military where most of the ground force is merceneries with the like of Blackwater and US bases are built and run by Haliburton?
        Todays jihadists that the US are fighting are on the payroll of the Pentagon working through private military contractors like MPRI with the KLA terrorist army.

  7. I’ll probably vote third party, some of the propositions are of interest also.. in the last election I voted for Nader… I wanted to see the first Arabic President.

    1. Uncle Milton
      We can have an Arab American president if he is qualified to serve. In 2000, 13% of Arab Americans voted for Ralph Nader simply because he was of Lebanese descent. Most others voted for Bush because they opposed Lieberman. Recall that George Bush won Michigan, which has the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the country. In 1988, the majority of Arab Americans voted for George H. W. Bush because Kitty Dukakis is jewish. It could be said that Arab Americans are partly to blame for both of the Bush Administrations and both gulf wars.

      1. Olive,
        I did vote for Nader, but not because he is of Lebanese decent but because I didn’t find the choices of either major party to be very palatable. (I was making a play on the first Black President bit…) Never voted for Bush but I did vote for Clinton in 96.

  8. Let me take this opportunity to make a prediction: Belarus and its leader are the next CNN/Fox bogeymen. Or one or two down the line, anyway, once Iran and Venezuela have shot their wad.

    1. China is the number 1 bad guy then Russia by a close second.
      It was Russia until recently with China’s large economic clout being the main force just now against the NWO.
      They have this stupid propaganda movie called “Georgia” funded by the Georgian government about the conflict in 2008 although even the EU’s own report stated he started it with the shelling of South Ossetia and the remake of Red Dawn when China with Russian assistance invades the US.
      The moronic public will lap both films up.

  9. @Robert Lindsay- Im not an expert on the political fiction that is Belarus. My(very) Jewish grandparent is from Belarus, however, so I dont know if Im a quarter Jewish, or a quarter Belarussian. Lukashenko is kinda weird, I dunno. He claims to have saved Belarus from the economic turmoils of the ’90s, but the truth is more complicated than that. The Union of Russia and Belarus(google it) is a more tightly knit supranational organization than the EU. The border isnt even patrolled, and the citizens of both countries have equal rights. Russia has supplied Lukashenko with cheap oil amd energy. However, the Kremlin is getting ready to take him out, in my opinion, due to his previous anti-Russian statements. He has restricted freedom, and clamped down on rights in Belarus, sure its pretty equal wealth wise, but the thing is, there isnt that much wealth. Putins plan is a unified Russia, and a silent majority in both countries have the same vision. We speak the same language and worship the same God(except the atheists). Russians actually live better than “Belarussians”, so Im not too big a fan of Lukashenko. The Kremlins plan is to simply slowly annex Belarus, peacefully, through cultural, economic, and even military integration, and it looks like thats happening.I dont think its some Socialist paradise and I suspect you praise it simply to be controversial. Swedes and Frenchmen live much, much better than Belarussians do, so clearly the current regime isnt doing something right. Also, it should be noted, that Russia’s economy is growing much faster than Belarus’ is. Its a peaceful, nice country, but theyre just too damn poor and Lukashenko isnt doing enough, thats my basic view.

    1. @AJ
      He did save Belarus the same fate as Ukraine and Russia when elected to power by kicking out the IMF/World Bank who by 1994 already plundered billions of Belarus money into off shore accounts.
      The US illegally and the EU placed sanctions on Belarus for his “undemocratic” elections or the unpopular CIA backed candidate that’s why Belarus has economic woes.
      Russia has been putting pressure on Belarus because Russia wants a 50% stake in the oil transit company that transits Russian oil from Russia through Belarus to the EU.
      “restricted freedom, and clamped down on rights”
      BS propaganda and if he has it s because the US and EU are trying to overthrow his government.
      Medvedev this idiot listening to these CIA/MI6 shock therapy economic advisors assets further serves US interests by abolishing the Russian/Belarus union and aggressively turning against Belarus airing an anti- Lukashenko documentary on prime time state TV which sparked a backlash against Russia.
      Before he does any more damage this fool has to go.
      Here’s a good website with articles about Belarus.

      1. @Robert Lindsay
        What’s wrong with LaRouche?
        He is the only one with a viable economic and political platform while everyone else is absolute junk.
        Bush Sr put in him in jail to silence him and his organisations produces excellent video documentaries and material.
        Wouldn’t be surprised if he conveniently had a sudden heart attack whacked Milosevic style.

  10. First off, I feel humbled by being named in a post; it’s almost like I’ve achieved a tiny bit of fame in a corner of the world (well, almost).
    Immigration is the main issue of my concern, so as I have shown, I take it seriously. I realize that if American becomes more and more Balkanized the poor get screwed over more and more, and you can say goodbye to a lot of Swede type programs that are characteristic of homogeneous Western democracies.

  11. @Robert Lindsay, youre familiar with LaRouche? @johnUK, Lukashenko is anti-Russian, but Russia isnt anti-Belarus, how, when were the same blood? I have mixed feelings on Medvedev. I like the fact that hes technologically savvy, and he is building Skolkovo. Russia is now the biggest investor in nanotechnology in THE WORLD. but on the other hand, even he admits that he failed in fighting corruption, lol.

    1. @AJ
      How can Lukashenko be anti-Russian when he is pro-Russian and advocated the Russian-Belarus union?
      It was Russia that started the anti-Lukaschenko attacks and Lukaschenko has unsurprisingly responded to this.
      Russia was already the biggest investor in nano-technology under Putin not Medvedev.
      Medvedev’s economic gurus.

  12. hey everybody, guess what? Larouchepac, JohnUK’s favorite organization (goofy cult) wants to build a BERING BRIDGE!!! A bridge connecting Alaska and Siberia, the US and Russia, hahahahaha! What a retarded idea! Its on larouche’s website! What goofballs! Nobody lives up there but Eskimos and Sarah Palin-style rednecks! That type of bridge would be useless, and is just a moneyhole LOL.

    1. @AJ
      Yes LaRouche wants to create the Eurasian land bridge connecting Asia with North American via Russia and Alaska by high speed maglev train system.
      Not just to connect Siberia with Alaska.
      What’s wrong with that? That’s a good idea.
      This was first conceived during the post Lincoln era when US industry was helping other countries develop their rail industry and it was US engineering assistance that helped develop the trans-Siberian rail system.

  13. Well I voted Republican today! Feels great!
    Makes you feel like a real, red blooded, White American man.
    Robert, you’ve spoken about this before, how you can’t stand it that so many White males look at the Republicans as the “real man’s party,” and the Dems as the “pussy party.” It’s kind of true though, most people think this way, even Dems, even if only subconsciously. You just can’t get away from it.
    I think you should consider voting Republican next election just because it will probably subconsciously pump up your self esteem. You’ll leave the polling place thinking, “hell yeah! Ain’t nobody gonna fuck with me today- I just voted Republican- I ain’t no fuckin’ pussy.” Voting Dem may very well subconsciously make you feel like, “hmmm, just voted for the pussy party… maybe I’m a pussy…” and you don’t need that.

  14. @johnUK because theres no point in it. Its a fucktarded idea thats basically a bridge in the middle of nowhere. It will cost way too much money, more than its worth. Im on my mobile phone (HTC TP2) and multimedia doesnt show up. Did you post a video or something? Also, Medvedev is supporting the idea of Russia transitioning to its own national operating system (away from Micro$oft) based on Linux, and an Android-based Russian smartphone

    1. It is to connect Russia and Asia via Alaska to Canada and the US with connecting rail network not just to Alaska itself.
      New York to Beijing in 3 hours via high speed rail sounds good to me.
      Good as Russian websites are hosted on Linux as Microsoft developed in part by the CIA has built in trap doors and security that lets the US and western intelligence open access to your computer without you knowing it.
      The cyber attack against Iran’s nuclear facility was successful due in part because it used windows operating system instead of Linux.
      Personally I would like it if China has major sway in Russia instead of Russia’s moronic policy of power projection against China.
      Russia would be better off if it ran Chinas economic policy.
      They would be better having Chinese immigrant labour rather than immigrants from Central Asia.
      Yes Medvedev’s economic gurus and where they were trained in London and Soros London institutes in Vienna under Gorbachev.
      Why does it not show up for you it does for me?
      Just go to YouTube and type in US and Russia: Collaboration Now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)