Keith Ellison Wears Shirt Calling For End Of America's National Sovereignty

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Grambler


Shake and Wake. A world without borders would be a better world..

Perhaps once the dust settles, it's going to be a free for all though before that happens .

All this over a t-shirt?

a reply to: Grambler

Shameful.

Fortunately, the types of folks they pander too (criminals, terrorists, extremists, etc) aren't a particularly loyal bunch. Look at any Democrat community, and you see a party rife with internal conflict (old vs. new, reasonable vs. radical)

Most of these morons can't be bothered to show up and vote let alone engage in actual violence against our Republic. Although I have no doubt a civil war/revolution is the ultimate goal of the low-information socialists, they significantly over-estimate their own capabilities/numbers (anyone remember their embarrassing Nov. "communist revolution" that fizzled?)

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Fortunately our properly armed population is a direct roadblock to their ultimate goals.

This is why we must take an absolutist stand on the Second Amendment. One certain red-flag immediate danger warning sign is any type of gun confiscation or restrictions whatsoever.

Drawing a line in the sand absolutely matters for free America. Let the pinkos have dumps like Commiefornia (and all the homeless/fecal matter spread in the streets that comes with it)

originally posted by: FyreByrd
So ... by Keith Ellison wearing a tee-shirt ... you assume that is the policy of the whole Democratic Political Party.

OF COURSE!

Just like Grambler and the rest of the GOP should be honest about being BABY KILLERS!

Deputy Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee pays a former Playboy to have an abortion.

You have no idea why he wore the shirt ...

AS it was International Workers Day ... I would assume it would be in Personal and perhaps professional support for Union solidarity.

Or it could have just been a T-Shirt for a Band?

Latino band Las Cafeteras has been selling T-Shirts that say “Yo No Creo En Fronteras” (I Don't Believe In Borders),
nodepression.com...

With the escalation of electoral politics, racial tension and the debate over immigration reform amongst presidential candidates, Las Cafeteras unapologetically bring a bold sound to provoke thought and encourage debates on and off the dance floor. With a message of love and unity, countering hateful rhetoric from political characters like Donald Trump, they’re taking their music straight to the heart of America spreading a message of unity, solidarity and celebration. “Donald Trump says he wants to build a wall, Las Cafeteras want to build bridges,” says Denise Carlos, on their press release.

www.latinorebels.com...



Neither us KNOWs his motivation.

a reply to: seagull

O.K, well didnt see that coming.
One party rule by the Republicans?

What about the impending Blue Wave?
What about the Demographics? When the Boomers die off, your nation will be majority minority, and then mostly Hispanic. That spells the end of the GOP altogether.

You look at the long game and the thing to fear is California......One Party Rule by the Democrats! And unlike the Republicans, the Dems know how to maintain and strengthen One Party Rule, i.e, no Party Card, no job, no housing, no benefits.

Thats where I see this going.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Neither us KNOWs his motivation.

Maybe he was at the end of his laundry cycle.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: seagull

O.K, well didnt see that coming.
One party rule by the Republicans?

What about the impending Blue Wave?
What about the Demographics? When the Boomers die off, your nation will be majority minority, and then mostly Hispanic. That spells the end of the GOP altogether.

You look at the long game and the thing to fear is California......One Party Rule by the Democrats! And unlike the Republicans, the Dems know how to maintain and strengthen One Party Rule, i.e, no Party Card, no job, no housing, no benefits.

Thats where I see this going.

Easy... there is no "impending blue wave." The "blue wave" is a last ditch act of desperation by a bankrupt (both financially and morally) corrupt political party to convince their real base (the moderate Dems) to show up at the polls. I think they are sort of just tolerating the radicals/separatists right now, in order to get them to show up and vote. But make no mistake, the DNC is still Nancy Pelosi's party and she won't hand it over to a bunch of twenty-somethings any time soon.

Besides, last I checked Trump is enjoying a 54% approval rating.

And you should take a look at the 2016 election map. County by county, it is clear America is a red-nation who rebuked 8 years of failed liberal policies. Despite Obama's best effort to be a moderate (I'll give him credit for that at least), former Democrats (like myself) flocked to Trump in droves after we saw the despicable display of anti-democratic kakistocracy with Clinton's dishonest nomination.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Woah now, was that just a "whataboutism" ?

I thought those were entirely unacceptable. Didn't you say that?

Isn't this thread about Ellison's ridiculous shirt calling for the end of American sovereignty? When pigs can fly...

And then the left has the nerve to claim others "not patriotic" for voting Trump.

a reply to: JBurns

That's a very interesting response. I could argue that the Trump majority is really quite fragile, having won only by carrying some 16 key precincts needed to push him over the total needed in the Electoral College, all the while actually losing in terms of the popular vote.

That said, I've given up trying to predict what Americans will do in an election cycle.

What I find particularly interesting is that you call yourself a former Democrat? So am I to assume you supported Obama but then left the Dems because of Hilary Clinton? Is that to say she alienated so much of the base?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: japhrimu
a reply to: FyreByrd

Could there be an “international” day without borders?

An 'international' day assumes communities/constiuenties (i.e. Workers) beyond national borders. Nobody considers 'internationalism' a negative when it comes to Captialism.

I think that currently capitalists in the rank and file are actually quite up in arms about internationalism (i.e., globalism).

Globalism is entirely different then internationalism.

Internationalism implies cooperation beyond borders whereas Globalism is some sort of made up term for various things that I can't follow, I think mostly unfounded conspiracy theories...

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Yep, and it’s how they think they can secure their voting base as well. Maybe if he doesn’t believe in borders we can send him somewhere else?

"It's not deportation if you don't believe in borders"

This is why we have the second amendment!!

All the peeps worried about your borders. Its funny how you have no problem with goods crossing the borders or financial transaction. Wish you could keep your missles and armed forces your side of the border too.

originally posted by: Ansuzrune
This is why we have the second amendment!!

Um.... What does the second amendment have to do with people wearing shirts that are controversial?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
So ... by Keith Ellison wearing a tee-shirt ... you assume that is the policy of the whole Democratic Political Party.

You have no idea why he wore the shirt ...

AS it was International Workers Day ... I would assume it would be in Personal and perhaps professional support for Union solidarity.

Neither us KNOWs his motivation.

Didn't some of the leaked details of Hillary's behind closed doors speeches, with wealthy donors, on her presidential campaign involve talks of open borders?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JBurns

That's a very interesting response. I could argue that the Trump majority is really quite fragile, having won only by carrying some 16 key precincts needed to push him over the total needed in the Electoral College, all the while actually losing in terms of the popular vote.

That said, I've given up trying to predict what Americans will do in an election cycle.

What I find particularly interesting is that you call yourself a former Democrat? So am I to assume you supported Obama but then left the Dems because of Hilary Clinton? Is that to say she alienated so much of the base?

Despite populous New York, if You take out California Trump wins popular by over 1 Million votes, iirc. California just happens to have such a large population to surpass a 1 million win in the rest of the states. Probably due to them being the receiving end of migration filled with sanctuaries. Were the votes from legal descendants? Or were they illegal votes? I'm sure any investigation would be road blocked, but a state that I think I heard wanted be called a sanctuary state, does not speak for america in general.

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JBurns

That's a very interesting response. I could argue that the Trump majority is really quite fragile, having won only by carrying some 16 key precincts needed to push him over the total needed in the Electoral College, all the while actually losing in terms of the popular vote.

That said, I've given up trying to predict what Americans will do in an election cycle.

What I find particularly interesting is that you call yourself a former Democrat? So am I to assume you supported Obama but then left the Dems because of Hilary Clinton? Is that to say she alienated so much of the base?

Despite populous New York, if You take out California Trump wins popular by over 1 Million votes, iirc. California just happens to have such a large population to surpass a 1 million win in the rest of the states. Probably due to them being the receiving end of migration filled with sanctuaries. Were the votes from legal descendants? Or were they illegal votes? I'm sure any investigation would be road blocked, but a state that I think I heard wanted be called a sanctuary state, does not speak for america in general.

Right so because a part of America doesn't agree with you turn on them, you know your own countrymen...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JBurns

That's a very interesting response. I could argue that the Trump majority is really quite fragile, having won only by carrying some 16 key precincts needed to push him over the total needed in the Electoral College, all the while actually losing in terms of the popular vote.

That said, I've given up trying to predict what Americans will do in an election cycle.

What I find particularly interesting is that you call yourself a former Democrat? So am I to assume you supported Obama but then left the Dems because of Hilary Clinton? Is that to say she alienated so much of the base?

Despite populous New York, if You take out California Trump wins popular by over 1 Million votes, iirc. California just happens to have such a large population to surpass a 1 million win in the rest of the states. Probably due to them being the receiving end of migration filled with sanctuaries. Were the votes from legal descendants? Or were they illegal votes? I'm sure any investigation would be road blocked, but a state that I think I heard wanted be called a sanctuary state, does not speak for america in general.

Right so because a part of America doesn't agree with you turn on them, you know your own countrymen...

Some of them are. Some arent

Thats kinda the point being made.