Trump And America’s Nationalist Movement

“Make America great Again.” Good for Americans. Good for the world!

Donald Trump, Presumptive Republican Nominee
Donald Trump, Presumptive Republican Nominee

Trump’s new American Nationalist Movement reminds a cowed American public of their “God given” rights, guaranteed by the Constitution and secured by a strong military to ensure America’s place as global leader of the world’s human rights.

In perfect elections, the elected officials are a reflection of the people’s will, however in today’s American election system, controlled by a two-party manage-a-trois waltz with the American voter, this is no longer true. This system does not, and absolutely has not reflected the will of anyone but that of the political pseudo-elites.The new Trump National Movement has caused an awakening that has America on the brink of a political revolution. People have become weary of race-baiters and political correctness of every form. America is crying out, “STOP, ENOUGH ALREADY!” The time has come for the type of change that Trump brings like a tsunami of relief.

Both Democratic and Republican voters have rejected their establishment candidates and strongly endorsed the outsider candidates of both parties with their votes. Still, the two-party system has failed to hear the people’s voice. The people of both parties have shouted out their will and it has fallen on deaf ears!

Some states hold closed primaries, thus eliminating the Independents and Third Parties from voting for their choice for a presidential nominee. In Delaware alone, there are 665,382 registered voters. 154,652 are unaffiliated independents, 4171 are The Independent Party of Delaware (IPoD), while another 1766 comprise other third parties. This means 160,589 registered voters in Delaware were prohibited from voting for a presidential nominee, unless they registered with one of the two major parties.

Closed primaries are only one way the two-party system controls who becomes the nominee of their party. Closed caucuses that eliminate the possibility of a citizen’s vote is another way to eliminate the citizens’ voice. But the Democrats have come up with yet, the best way to further eliminate the people’s choice of a presidential nominee. “The Super-Delegate!” This is unbelievable, in that it creates a new political aristocracy or nobility, if you will. This means that a candidate can severely beat the party’s “chosen anointed one” in the primaries and still lose the nomination.

Is the political paradigm changing the political thinking in America? Hell yes! Is it time for American’s to make America great again? Hell Yes! It is time for a non-politician to take the reins of America and make a change in the face she presents to the world, and its own people.

According to the New York Times, the number of people who still believe in the American dream has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. The American people have come to the precipice of a decision, and have thrown the establishment candidates of both parties to the curb. Whether or not they like Trump, is no longer the issue. The people know and sense that Trump loves America and her people, and know he will stop at nothing to, “Make America Great Again.”

16 thoughts on “Trump And America’s Nationalist Movement”

  1. As the only national election is for the offices of President and Vice President, there should be uniformity of the candidate selection process. A single open nationwide presidential primary would be a step in the right direction.

    The Democratic Party’s “super-delegate” primary system is clearly rigged in favor of the political establishment and is, ab initio, constitutionally questionable at best.

  2. People have become weary of race-baiters and political correctness of every form. …

    Some people, but not all. Sanders and Clinton are both politically-correct race baiters, and one could become president.

    A single open nationwide presidential primary would be a step in the right direction.

    Nationalizing what is a state decision is a step in the wrong direction.

    If there were ever a time for a viable third-party candidate, this is it. Will there be one? Probably not. So, what does that tell you?

    That there is little to no demand for a Third Party.

    In most of Europe, there are several “major” parties within a given country. Hence, nothing can get done unless ideologically disparate groups- communists and home school advocates, for example- unite to protect their interests on a particular issue. This results in a minority-majority of perhaps only 30% dictating policy to the other 70% who disagree. And this is the fundamental and fatal flaw in political systems that have viable third- and fourth and fifth- political parties. A dictatorship of the minority.

  3. I agree, nationalizing the primaries is a step in the wrong direction, just as doing away with the Electoral College would be.

    In both cases the urban populations would be in control of everyone’s destiny….. Eventually rural America would only exist to serve the cities…. Leftist utopia.

  4. fbh
    Nobody mentioned nationalizing the primaries. However, the diversity in the way primaries and caucuses are conducted in different states is both confusing and stacked in favor of anointed chosen candidates and in closed primary states, a large portion of registered voters in many states have NO voice. The primary process, as it stands now is not a fair or an easy process. The states could at least standardize the process and have open primaries.

  5. “a large portion of registered voters in many states have NO voice”

    …by their own choice, since they are perfectly capable of registering as a member of any party they would like. It is a voluntary decision of the voter whether they would like to register in such a way that they will be able to vote in the primary of their preferred party. No one is preventing them from doing so.

    This is like arguing that I should have a vote in a corporate board election when I don’t hold any stock in the corporation.

    There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. Do you seriously want Democrats picking who the Republican nominee should be?

  6. Nobody mentioned nationalizing the primaries.

    Then what does this mean?……

    A single open nationwide presidential primary would be a step in the right direction.

    Since the states now operate primaries under their own rules, wouldn’t having “a single open nationwide presidential primary” require federal legislation to impliment?

  7. “Then what does this mean?”

    Rick, it is unfair of you to quote one thing Don said and use it to question another thing Don said.

    Don’s other problem is that he still has not entirely grasped the fact that states don’t have the right to decide how the parties actually appoint their nominees in the first place; or the fact that, yes, with 50 states, a lot of things are done differently in them. In some states, you can marry your first cousin, and in some states you can’t. That’s sort of how this country works.

    But if Don wants a uniform open primary voting system for deciding party nominees, and then such a thing actually happened, wait until you hear him scream about IPOD being required to have anyone – including me – vote on who IPOD’s candidates should be, instead of having a handful of people deciding around the table at a Waffle House or whatever.

    So, Don, I’m with you. Let’s have open primaries for all parties, and give me a vote on who IPOD’s candidates should be. You’ll love it.

  8. @Nitpicker
    As always, it certainly is rousing to wake up in the morning to wonderful attack from the famous Nit.
    Thank you Nit. I love you too.

  9. Don, I’m agreeing with you.

    All registered voters should be able to vote in open primaries to determine who your party’s candidates should be.

    Why are you calling that an “attack”?

    Or are you suggesting that parties should have open primaries, unless it is your party?

  10. That’s alright Rick, I just kind of laugh at Nit’s vain attempts anonymous commenting. Once in a while Nit gets it right!

  11. Rick: Yes, many European countries (and Israel) have multiple parties. And they must form coalition governments if a single party fails to achieve a majority vote in their parliaments. That often happens. But how does that circumstance result in a dictatorship of the minority?

  12. But how does that circumstance result in a dictatorship of the minority?

    Simple. Say the issue is raising the minimum wage, for example. The communists and the home-schoolers unite for a 31% total. No other coalition reaches 30%. Thus, the 31% “majority” carries the day.

  13. Rick: This makes no sense to me. In the example you give, the bill is to raise the minimum wage. Everyone in parliament gets to vote yes or no. Let’s say there are 100 members of parliament. If the 2 minority parties with a combined total of 31 votes vote “yes”, then they will be successful in raising the minimum wage only if the remaining 69 members from other parties choose not to vote. If they vote “no”, then the bill fails. Again, where is the dictatorship of the minority?

  14. Because in Europe, it is all about deals. Vote with us here, we’ll vote for you there. The thirty percent of communists and home-schoolers who want to raise the minimum wage agree to support a bill offered by the thirty percent radical gun-control lobby. So, two bills are passed with only thirty percent support.

    Sure, there are deals here in the U.S., particularly when the House and Senate are split. But usually, bills are passed with at least a thin majority.

    With two parties, the worse you can get is 50/50.

    At the end of the day, it looks like the two-party system is here to stay in the U.S. The most third-party candidates can do is perform the spoiler role- as Perot did in 1992 and Nader did in 2000. Both altered electoral outcomes but achieved nothing.

  15. Rick, if you are talking about the coalitions of various parties that often are needed in order form governments, then I see your point. Take Netanyahu’s coalition government(s) for example. Because of his razor-thin majority, he has had to agree to demands of the right right. If he doesn’t, then they threaten to pull out of the coalition.

    I can’t see though how this is materially any different than what the House Freedom Caucus does in Congress: A minority of 36 reps acting as a bloc to control the agenda of the majority of Republicans.

Comments are closed.