The performance of the candidates in order, might be
- Fred Thompson
- Tom Tancredo
- Duncan Hunter
- Ron Paul
- Mitt Romney
- John McCain
- Mike Huckabee
- Rudi Giuliani
There are two groups. The first group are loyal to Americans as people and will fight for them. That group of 4 won because they had things to say to help Americans. Those 4 performed as follows in terms of winning the debate.
- Fred Thompson Had things to say. Didn’t surrender on the Confederate Flag. Thompson is willing to say what he thinks on social security, entitlements, immigration. etc. Fred had the most to offer on many subjects that was actually for the benefit of Americans. It was also at a good level of using specifics when needed to bolster an explicit set of policies to help Americans. None of the others used specific facts to support policies to help Americans as effectively as Fred.
- Tom Tancredo. Was more relaxed and confident than usual. He was funny and self-deprecating at times and comfortable in his skin.
- Duncan Hunter. Strong confident, pro-American.
- Ron Paul. Independent, didn’t waffle in face of some tough questions.
The second 4 had nothing positive to offer to Americans.
- Mitt Romney. Empty suit. Romney has nothing to offer to make our lives better. Romney made 250 million in the 1980’s and 1990’s by ending good paying jobs. Men’s median wages are lower than in 1973. Women’s median wages are what men’s were in 1960. See p60-233.pdf. Romney made money for himself by keeping them lower.
- John McCain. Was somewhat defensive and shrill.
- Mike Huckabee. He really made it clear at length that he has no loyalty to Americans, that Americans in general are closet racists and that he really despises those who think he owes them or any American citizens loyalty. For Huckabee, hating Americans opposed to immigration is a moral passion. He reacts with anger to any proposal to be loyal to Americans when their interests conflict with immigrants, which is often. Huckabee thinks that conflict is often and thinks Americans who want Huckabee to take their side are racist.
- Rudi Giuliani. He was defensive through the evening. Like the others in the anti-American 4, he makes it clear he has contempt and no loyalty for Americans where it counts, in wages and in keeping out those who come here and change our country, which is for the worse.
The top 4 were all comfortable in their skins. The bottom 4 were all uncomfortable. The top 4 were for the people. The bottom 4 had covert or even overt hostility to the people.
That included Romney on the Confederate Flag. Romney made clear his contempt and you could see his mind working to use this as a triangulation issue to advance himself, but he might cost himself votes in South Carolina where Fred Thompson is battling it out with Romney, both are at the top in South Carolina, which is the third event behind Iowa and New Hampshire.
Huckabee on tuition breaks for illegals came out with a passion against anyone who would deny anything to children of illegals or illegals themselves. For Huckabee this is a moral issue direct from God. Anyone who is opposed to Huckabee on helping illegals is not a good Christian or person and is evil. He made that clear.
==Hypothesis on why bottom 4 came off as against us
We discuss here a hypothesis of why the second 4 had nothing to offer Americans on good paying jobs, job security, stopping immigration, etc.
The second 4 think, or act as if, its racist to be loyal to Americans. These 4 are intentionally and affirmatively “racist” against Americans. They advocate good job destruction for Americans and their children. They advocate ending the safety of American communities and making them unsafe at night or even by day by immigration by those who have manifested animosity against Americans, especially white Christian or secular Americans.
The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists. Because immigration supremacy is built on calling whites racist to silence them its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of this strategy and these candidates. Whites are the majority so a strategy to keep wages below the 1973 level for men for all groups has to be built on cowing whites into silence.
Their strategy is that whites who ask for good wages will be called racist when they propose the only real solution, ending all legal immigration. So we need to discuss at length the anti-white racism in the immigration supremacist position of the bottom 4 candidates.
The candidates who imply loyalty to Americans is racist are really implying that whites are racists who deserve nothing. This is the whites deserve to lose their good jobs, aren’t due anything for building the country or fighting the wars, and should be condemned if they say they are.
These candidates intentionally pursue big immigration strategies designed to make whites a minority, take away their good jobs and label all whites as racists. They are doing this to everyone else here too. Since big immigration as a strategy relies on labeling whites as racist to succeed, its necessary to point out the anti-whiteness of the candidates pursuing this approach. The bottom 4 are triangulating with the rest of whites as racist.
Although the 4 didn’t express these ideas explicitly, their behavior at the debate, and their past record are consistent with this hypothesis. They don’t have anything to offer to make American lives better. The top 4 did. The top 4 are immigration restrictionists in one way or another. The bottom 4 are immigration supremacists.
==Questions that should be asked.
A question that should have been asked, is: Do you think its racist to want to stop all legal immigration, and send all the illegals home?
To Huckabee, do you think Tom Tancredo’s statements or positions on immigration are racist?
Do you think America should remain a majority white country? What would you do to keep it that way? (This should be asked of Democrats as well.)
Are those who say America should stay majority white racist?
For Dems and Huckabee:
Do blacks have lower IQ than whites?
Is it partly genetic?
Is it racist to say so?
Does it matter?
Do “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime?
Is it racist to say “racial differences exist” between blacks and whites in crime? Hispanics?
Does that imply we should not have immigration by blacks or Hispanics?
Is it racist to say so?
Is there regression towards the mean in IQ and behavior?
Does this mean we should not have immigration from the third world, even higher IQ or better behaved individuals?
Is it racist to say so?
Is it white supremacist to say so?
Is the Confederate Flag a symbol of white nationalism or white supremacism?
Do you consider Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode, Trent Lott, or George Allen to have said anything that is white nationalist or white supremacist?
Do you believe America will become a white minority country?
Do you think its racist to say it should not?
Do you think doing anything to stop America becoming white minority is white nationalism or white supremacism?
Are you an immigration supremacist in the sense that you believe America will become minority white and that you call anyone who says to stop that a racist or white nationalist or white supremacist?
Is anyone who says America should stay majority white a white nationalist?
A white supremacist?
Do you believe every American either has to
- Support or accept minority status for whites, or
- Support keeping America majority white and thereby be a white nationalist or white supremacist?
Is ignoring the issue and letting it happen, America becoming minority white, the right thing to do?
Is anyone who talks about it as negative, a racist, white nationalist or white supremacist?
If saying America should be white majority is white nationalism, and saying it should be white minority is immigration nationalism, which are you?
Does your answer change if its white supremacist v. immigration supremacist as the labels?