So what is your take on the Alt/New Right?

[MED]

Wrong. Trump would not have won but for the Religious Right. Or what you might have once called everyday, normal, well adjusted, decent, hardworking folk.

The state has no bigger mandate than of the preservation of the family unit, and the protection of the innocent. For without strong stable families as a foundation to formate good, moral citizens we will continue to have more of the same.

Children do not learn morals from the public education system.

The government does not provide it to them.

It comes from the family unit and churches.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."
- Benjamin Rush

"The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence." - Noah Webster

" Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."
- George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

But perhaps you believe these are merely the musings of dead, old, white men and in no way could apply to such a group of advanced people as that of the United States. A people that seeks secure borders to protect us from foreigners that do us physical or economical harm, while sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of the un-born and promoting every form of deviant behavior as normal, and seek to eliminate the moral fabric of our country, the family unit.


Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi

I like this post.

The original post; what do I think of the term? It just shows further division and polarization as we relive 1850s America. Hopefully, we won't push it and relive 1860s America. Too many people want to be right and force their will on others.

[SG1]

I know I've never heard of it until this election and I've only heard the phrase from liberal news sources. Please link me to what Pew.org has to say about it.

How about you learn about it YOURSELF? http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/0...the-alt-right/

[Irving]

I'm good. I don't have time to learn about every cyclical made up political party that no one will remember come the next election cycle.

[SG1]

I'm good. I don't have time to learn about every cyclical made up political party that no one will remember come the next election cycle.

So if you are not going to add anything, learn anything, why are you in this thread? You are not just reverse trolling?

[Ah Pook]

Sorry, how can it be the "alt right" with it's the same old stale values from the last 30yrs? Alt means different, new, not the norm... How is this "Alt"?

Stupid people with stupid buzzwords.

[Ah Pook]

So if you are not going to add anything, learn anything, why are you in this thread? You are not just reverse trolling?

Hello pot, this is kettle...

Give it a rest.

[SG1]

Sorry, how can it be the "alt right" with it's the same old stale values from the last 30yrs? Alt means different, new, not the norm... How is this "Alt"?

Stupid people with stupid buzzwords.

I think you are confusing the The New Right with Neo Cons/Religious Right.

[SG1]

Hello pot, this is kettle...

Give it a rest.

I started this thread to gauge the mood, you seem to add nothing and seem to be trolling.

[Skip]

I think you are confusing the The New Right with Neo Cons/Religious Right.

In all seriousness I thought that's what the "alt" label was intended to do; differentiate a group of dissenters (from Lib agenda) who are not primarily interested in social issues.

The Left's canned attacks are mostly identity politics/social issues so the "Alt Right" was a threat. It had to be labeled before Libs could marginalize it.

Ironically, the Libs succeeded in just putting more people in boxes and offending a lot of people who weren't used to getting that treatment. Imagine a fiscally conservative, Libertarian leaning, gay man who isn't comfortable with the Islamification of the US. He was packaged and marginalized because the Left wasn't open to him.

[SG1]

In all seriousness I thought that's what the "alt" label was intended to do; differentiate a group of dissenters (from Lib agenda) who are not primarily interested in social issues.

The Left's canned attacks are mostly identity politics/social issues so the "Alt Right" was a threat. It had to be labeled before Libs could marginalize it.

Ironically, the Libs succeeded in just putting more people in boxes and offending a lot of people who weren't used to getting that treatment. Imagine a fiscally conservative, Libertarian leaning, gay man who isn't comfortable with the Islamification of the US. He was packaged and marginalized because the Left wasn't open to him.

Without their sub human friends in the MSM and thanks to PC fatigue the left really can not marginalize anything/anyone expect to brain dead leftist (I repeat myself)

Of course, to the left, everyone has the same values, culture, etc and any proof to the contrary is "racism". If the cost of indulging their reality detached insanity is dead gays (like Orlando) or people raped and murdered by illegals, or our rights have to be stripped away in the name of "public safety" so be it.

If some people love their "diversity" so much why not move them to it and not move it here?