Do I misunderstand or are you telling me that not allowing illegal immigrants to vote is racist?
I am just reading your code words. No one wants illegal immigrants to vote. And there is only one kind of illegal immigrant you are focused on.
Wow you think white people should be enslaved by black people as payback for what happened? Geez, these code words of yours are serious.
I don't believe that "Whites" should be enslaved. I would never use code words. But if you think I believe for one second that your claims are about illegal Swedish immigrants, you might be surprised.No illegal immigrant can vote in an election. Something you already know.
You're not fooling anyone, it's in your coded words.
I never did. I thought the left was supposed to be against prejudice?
What does that even mean? "The" left theoretically would have human beings who are classified as being "leftists". Any human being can be prejudice. You just have to look at their beliefs. When it comes to ideologies, some are based upon a belief in groups and ones that can be classified as inferior/superior. I think the thing is. . . just don't lie about it. Be upfront. If you believe in that nonsense, stop using code words. Be honest.
What do you mean what do you mean? Which two major parties made it a prominent movement to oppose preemptive judgement of people? And you can keep your conspiritorial "code words" to yourself, you're not living in a movie. You're not a spy or cryptographer. There's no secret message to unveil.
Two major parties? I can't help unwind your confusion. In the public square, both parties would make lay claim to being fighters of prejudice and bigotry. Here at GaG, bigotry towards certain groups is seen as being right and being "Conservative". I am just saying, whatever you believe or however you label yourself, it would be convenient if you didn't lie about it. That's just being dishonest and being a coward on top of being a bigot. And it is must easier to get along with a bigot than it is with a person who lies about their beliefs.
I meant to say "which of the two" not "which two." And I'd like to emphasis the use of "a prominent movement" as only one of the two parties have done such. And I'm not lying about any of my beliefs. Either you're wrongfully implying that I do, or you're randomly stating irrelevant wisdom. Considering how odd the latter would be, I'm willing to bet the former is the case.
Hey, if you say you are not lying then maybe you aren't. I don't know. But that whole thing about labels preventing prejudice is bunk.A person is prejudiced based upon their beliefs. Not upon what you choose to label them.
It isn't, fighting prejudice is a main proponent of the left. How many times have you heard a leftist actively oppose racism, sexism, etc? How many times have you hear a right-wing person actively do it?
You keep saying that it is the main proponent of the "left". Just like that means something. It simply a political statement. Frequently racists try to make their insane views look reasonable by making the claim that a certain "leftist" was also a bigot. As though, the idea that bigotry is bad. . . is invalid. Nah, the idea is not invalid no matter how many times a supposed "leftist" fails your test. The point is, what does that person believe. Just like I asked you about your beliefs. But you can't be honest about what you believe or disbelieve.I know plenty of supposed "leftists" who are devout racists. That does not mean anything. There are all kinds of racist gays, lesbians, non-binary folks, communists, etc. That has been documented for centuries.
I hate to be blunt, but you're coming across as mentally challenged. I was criticizing prejudice, not saying "oh, look, they're prejudice, so I can be racist."
For all practical purposes at GaG, prejudice and racist are the same thing. And I find it hilarious that anonymous troll is evaluating my mental fitness.LOLx10!!!
That's not true, prejudice is preemptively judging. You can be prejudiced to city folk, soccer players, brown eyed people, etc. Racism is often a form of prejudice, but prejudice is not "for all practical purposes" racism.And you know what I find funny? That you're avoiding addressing your indisputable fault. You realised you're in the wrong and can't credibly defend yourself so you resorted to "lol ____ is invalid and therefore I find it funny but I won't provide any support to this claim, not because I can't but because I simply don't want to, is all, trust me I know what I'm talking about."
We make an exception for right wing nuts
Can you elaborate?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Why would dems think illegals would vote for them, if given the right to vote?
What percentage of illegal immigrants are hispanic and what percentage of Hispanics vote Democrat?
Not to mention the economic status of nearly all Hispanic immigrants coming from the south. Democrats benefit then financially.
Dude, George Bush won huge percentages of the Hispanic vote. Your premise does not work.
Dude, one example doesn't invalidate a broader statistic. As I asked, of which you attempted to avoid, what percentage of Hispanic voters are Democrat? Well, according to www.pewresearch.org/.../ more than two thirds of hispanic voters voted democratic, while less than one third voted Republican.
Uhm, George Bush never called hispanics murderers and thugs. If you alienate an ethnic group, it is kind of silly to ask why they feel alienated.
Oh, did Romney call Hispanics murderers and thugs when Obama got 71% of the latino vote while he only got 27%? www.pewresearch.org/.../
So why throw out voting percentages for George Bush. . . but use the ones for Obama?George Bush ran an effective strategy to win a significant portion of the Hispanic vote. Romney. . . I don't care what you say. . . he was just a horrible candidate.
Because Bush is the statistical outlier. Hispanics have been voting left for a longggggggg time. And even if they haven't, they sure as hell are now. Not to mention, Bush still didn't even win a majority of the hispanic voters. It's estimated (since the polling at that didn't didn't outright ask how people voted) that he got only 44%. The initial remark is even "(the data/poll) suggests that Latino support for President George W. Bush may have been lower than initially estimated." So with all this statistical evidence and common sense, why not just admit you're wrong?
Oops, forgot to provide the link: www.pewresearch.org/.../
Yeah, I don't think anything here supports your point. So I won't be trying to convince you. I just want to talk about some general points for those who might be reading along.The article talks about skewed exit polling because of an over-representation of "Cubans". You probably don't know or get this. But Cubans mostly vote Republican. Always have. Always will. Because they fled Castro's communist regime where they were persecuted and had their freedoms taken away over their political views. You call the Hispanic because of your obsession with race, then paint them with an image that makes no sense.. I. . . knowing so many different Latino folks. I know that their experiences and their background are unique. Younger Latinos, especially those who are born here, will probably be more liberal. Older ones or ones who were actually born abroad. . . actually tend to be more Conservative. The funny thing for you fake cons online is you got it all backwards. And Bush knew that. Bush knew he could focus on messages like family, entrepreneurship, empowering neighborhoods, and talking about his faith, and win significant portions of the Hispanic vote. They basically gave him Florida against Gore. You seemed to be convinced of a point. Without any evidence supporting. Bush proved you can go to the Hispanic community with a message and win votes. You pretend there is no reason to talk to Hispanics at all.
The 56% of Hispanics that didn't vote for Bush doesn't support my point that most hispanics vote left? (Let alone the other two links I gave you where the different was much larger). And "knowing different unique latino folk" doesn't change statistics. There are always people in a massive groups that don't align with what the majority does, that doesn't change the fact that hispanics historically vote left more often than not, and in nearly all cases, by a landslide. And we don't "have it backwards" about "being able to focus on messages loor family, entrepreneurship, empowering neighborhoods, faith, etc." If I had it backwards, I'd advocate the opposite, of which I haven't. I'm not saying "Republicans can't get the hispanic vote" I'm telling you "Republicans aren't getting the hispanic vote." It's like if I said "I didn't stroll by the ice cream ship on my way home" and you reply with "you got it backwards, you COULD stroll by the ice cream shop if you take a different route!" Like nobody said we couldn't, we said we didn't. 😂 and "without any evidence supporting? Bro, all three links showed you hispanics voting more left than they did right. That IS my point. That's inherently, indisputably supporting my point.
To give it to you more clearly, you asked "why would dems think illegals would vote for them?" Oh which my response was, because a baby majority of illegals historically have, and consistently. And somehow you're trying to twist that into "well Republicans can't possibly win hispanic voters so there is no point in talking to them." Grow up, my guy
Of which*Because a vast majority*
You talk about 55% that did not support Bush. But the rest did. And without that support he does not win two terms. You can't dismiss an entire group of people and expect for them to vote for you. You can't post ignorance about people and expect that they will support you.No. you have it backwards. You can't claim that Republicans are not getting Hispanic vote when you know your guy is talking about Mexicans being thugs and gang members. You can't complain about Hispanics being angry that all of them get labeled "Mexican" just because they share a language and phenotype. You can't whine because you have made a choice to focus on their community as the problem with illegal immigration when over 40% are from visa overstays.It is not Hispanics fault they don't vote Republican. It is the Republicans fault for trying to scapegoat them instead of talking to them about real issues.
Again, you asked me "why would dems think illegal immigrants would vote for them" not "can Republicans ignore the hispanic vote and still win?" so saying "but without that support bush does not win two terms." You're either challenged or you're desperately using a straw man. I'm not debating nor denying the benefit of those voters. And no, I don't have it backwards, and yes I CAN claim that Republicans are not getting Hispanic voters even if the current president, not "my guy," called illegal immigrants crossing the boarder thugs and murderers. Because even if you take Trump out of the picture, they STILL vote Democrat. Let's look at the last FOURTY years. Latinausa. org (https://www. latinousa. org/2015/10/29/the-latino-vote-in-presidential-races/) shows us 1980-2012 (and we already know how the Latinos voted from 2012-2020 as we have already discussed). The Latino vote has not once voted more Republican than Democrat in the last 40 years, in fact, EIGHT of the TEN elections (the 8th being Trump's election that the link doesn't include) in the last 40 years had TWICE as many votes for Democrats than Republicans (that means at least 2/3rds voted Democrat).
You are the one with the "challenges". I asked you why illegal immigrants would vote democratic, you talked about Hispanics voting for dems. So your issues with Hispanics have been revealed. I am just telling you maybe all that crazed racist nonsense is just nonsense. Maybe Republicans have a great story, outside of Trump, to take to the Hispanic community. Many from failed communist states, despise socialized anything. Many older immigrants actually love the story about strong families and communities. So you keep saying "they vote democratic". I have already illustrated how pivotal they were to Bush's victories. Giving him the most important swing state prize of all, Florida. Its like talking to a stone wall. So which is better for the Republicans to lose the Hispanic vote 55 to 45? Or to lose it 72 to 28?Which is better for your election chances?I mean, I am not trying to convince you. Give up the vote. Never talk to another Hispanic again. Make crazed weird assumptions about them. I guess that works on some level.
For the third of fourth time, your response is "Republicans need the hispanic vote" when we are discussing how why Democrats would believe hispanics would vote for them (of which the answer is "because they have been consistently") and whether or not they truthfully have been consistently, of which I've proven through the links I've provided. It's very clear that all you do is desperately try to shift the narrative to "Republicans can benefit from hispanic voters!" Not once have I denied or even disputed that. You're just creating the same strawman over, and over, and over again.
You are just not listening.Look write them off.Just stop whining about them voting for a party that will talk to them about issues.
I'm not whinging, you asked me what they would think that, and I told you why. Answering your question and then providing statistical evidence to support why my answer is correct is not whining. I haven't been saying "wow Hispanics are so mean why can't they just vote for us? This is so lame!"
Not whining, you asked me why they*
You are whining. Keep doing it.It helps.
I rest my case. This is what happens when you try to debate someone with EQ rather than IQ.
You're delusional, lmao.
No, you are. In the first place even if Democrats were to do this its not like they would be the first country in the world to do this and there are good reasons to especially for USA but again this is based on the laughable assumptions that the Democrats were going to do it.. which they are not.On the other hand the Republicans have a LOOOONG history of suppressing votes. Everything from throwing out votes to telling people the wrong dates to vote to telling people their votes were already counted so they did not need to come to voter ID. Its truly an all you can eat voter suppression buffet.
I like how you rationalize its defense by saying "they wouldn't be the first country to do it" which inherently implies that it is within reason, then you follow it up with "it's laughable to think that they would do that." So which is it, is it within reasonable or is it entirely laughable? I'd also like to point out that you're regarding the party that had a vast majority if that all democratic nominees say that they would provide health care for illegal immigrants. Secondly, saying Republicans have a long history with suppressing votes (which I assume is conspiritorial) doesn't mean they only want the rich to vote, it would mean they only want their party to vote. Additionally, if you really want to go down that route, on the same level of validity and credibility, Democrara have a long history of using dead people's names to vote and sneaking illegal immigrants and their names into the ballots.
I am very happy you actually picked up on the fact that 1: Its not unreasonable, because its not and 2: The Democrats would not do it. After all just because something is reasonable does not mean its part of the end goal of any given organization or you would just have two parties that stand for exactly the same things since that is the only thing "reasonable".Dont get me wrong, I think they should stand for it since it makes sense for USA in particular but the Democratic party is not at all interested in it. This is why your silly idea that they are somehow wanting to do it is stupid.. they are not.. far from it. You are delusional if you think they are.I challenge you to provide a comprehensive list of fake votes from either dead people or from illegal voters because they are virtually non-existent. As for Republican voter suppression, here is some night time reading material for you if you are interested in a small glance:en.wikipedia.org/.../Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
You debate like a child. I didn't say that it's not unreasonable, I stated that you implied it wasn't unreasonable. If you want to be taken seriously, I'd advise you refrain from poor attempts at twisting words and outright lying about what people have said in hopes they won't call you out on it (seriously, do you think this is middle school?). Nor did I say the Democrats would not do to, again, I stated that that is what you said. Nor did I say, despite you claiming so, "because it is reasonable, it must be a part of the end goal of a given organization." I said that you made two conflicting remarks, one that example A is within reason, and two that example A is laughable. Again, this is a rather pitiful attempt at attempting to twist someone's words. And if you'd like to claim otherwise, I urge you to actually, literally quote me saying that 1. I think/believe allowing criminals to vote is reasonable, 2. Democrats will not ever try to legalize criminal voters, and 3. if it is reasonable, then it must be the end goal of a/all/any organizations. Lastly, continuously repeating "they wouldn't do that" will not convince anyone besides yourself. I've already mentioned reasons as to why they might, that being their idea about giving illegal immigrants free health care, as well as being accused to sneaking illegal voters into the ballot system. Aside from "they would never do that" can you actually counter the argument at hand, rather than merely denying it? And the fact that you call me delusional despite Democrats having shown favor to illegal immigrants for so many years is pretty hilarious (and again, you haven't supported your claim unlike I have). (The rest of my response will be in a following comment due to the character limit).
Not to mention, leftists have been firmly opposing voter ID legislation. It's entirely clear what they're doing. And again, just because Republicans have allegedly tried to suppress votes, that has literally no proof that they only want the rich to vote, assuming it actually happened, all it proves is they wanted their opposition to not vote, that being the Democratic party. Unless of course you mean to tell me Democrats = poor and Republicans = rich? And alright, if you can find me a comprehensive list of the names of people who were tricked into not voting, I'll go right ahead and look for a silly list that you and I both know few if anyone has taken the time to publicly accumulate. But I do have something I think you might be interested in seeing.townhall.com/.../cbs-uncovers-voter-fraud-in-la-n2168330Here is an article about hundreds of dead people voting in Los Angeles alone. (The article even provides a few links to other occurrences of this, as well).www.heritage.org/.../voter-fraud-exists-even-though-many-the-media-claim-it-doesnt"Court filings by the Texas attorney general reveal that funding for a voter fraud ring came from the former head of the Texas Democratic Party in Fort Worth."They're literally funding it. 😂
It's not a functional democracy when you have millions of people who will overwhelmingly vote for one side.It's a deep run case of corruption.
Assuming you're referring to me, I never said it was and I never defended voter suppression.
I figured you were saying that voter suppression could theoretically result in an overwhelming landslide of one party.
I'm talking about mass migration
So you were referring to the favor of illegal immigrants voting?
I see, well it's currently not legal and the difference of the popular vote in the last election was 2.1% or roughly 3 million (of roughly 129 million) votes. So can you point out the overwhelmingly one-sided concern are you attempting to fix with illegal immigrants voting?
Non European immigrants are usually against the conservative and pro Western stance.
Can you elaborate on how that relates to my last response?
HA! You want to lecture me on being a child when you drop a wall of text on me like if line breakers were sold out at the store from being stockpiled due to the coronavirus? Id rather you just used all caps with proper formatting quite honestly since reading your OH so carefully formulated response is just painful (more than necessary that is).Also I evidently gave you too much credit since I was just congratulating you for noticing that I, as in ME, said that it was both a reasonable thing and that Democrats would still not do it. I never said anything about what you believed. As you just so aptly said; " I'd advise you refrain from poor attempts at twisting words and outright lying about what people have said in hopes they won't call you out on it (seriously, do you think this is middle school?)" although learning to read in the first place might take priority.Aside from that most of your whole response is just poorly formatted garbage where you spiral into things I never said and points I never made. What few other points you made such as that Democrats want to give illegals the right to vote because free health care... makes no sense. One does not lead to the other and its basically a standard in developed nations to provide free healthcare to everyone, including illegal citizens.As for sneaking illegal voters into the ballot system? Lets just start by throwing out the heritage. com link because that propaganda think tank is literally worse than garbage. Actually both your links are garbage it appears like.
Since 2000 there has been 44 recorded cases of voter fraud in USA, that includes dead people voting and illegal citizens. That is out of 1 billion votes cast giving a rate of 0.0000044%. This is CLEARLY an imminent threat to your democracy /sarcasm but lets be serious for a moment here.What do you ACTUALLY want accomplished with a silly ID law? Photo ID's are falsified already, the staff in charge of confirming the identity is not educated in processing a photo ID AND there are literally better conventional systems both in place and around the world that does not require a photo ID.In other words you are looking for a solution where there is no problem and coming up with the wrong solution anyway.. Congratulations.This is literally the problem with you people. You dont make any sense.
I woke up like 5 minutes ago, either one of you respond to this so that I get the notification and I'll respond sometime later today