 |
It's classic liberal dem strategy. First, by throwing open the southern border, they essentially import millions of what they perceive will become liberal dem voters, and then they play the race card against anyone who points that out. The know that the greater part of the media will play along with them in enticing the non-thinking crowd to accept that charge.
Why wouldn't southern border immigrants become Republican voters?
You would have to ask the Dems that . They are the ones who made that presumption That it has been part of their strategy to build a permanent Dem majority is undeniable It wasn't the Repubs using that rhetoric .It was the Dems
The Emerging Democratic Majority | Book by John B. Judis, Ruy Teixeira | Official Publisher Page | Simon & Schuster (simonandschuster.com)
Their argument rests on the assumption that immigration, legal and illegal, will swell the ranks of Democrat voters and hasten the inevitable emergence of a permanent Democratic majority. But that was 2013 . It is not looking so promising anymore .
A Permanent Democratic Majority? | RealClearPolitics
I think they will ask themselves three questions.Quote:
Why wouldn't southern border immigrants become Republican voters?
1. Who let us cross the border illegally with no repurcusions?
2. Who, after letting us cross, changed endlessly about the need to give us a "path to citizenship?"
3. Who opened up the largesse of welfare programs to us?
They will see it in their best interest to vote dem.
Obviously, you don't understand how bing works.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have no doubt I could learn some things about search engines, but it also strikes me that finding SOMETHING is far preferable to finding NOTHING. At any rate you have, at present, no promised legal opinion. There was a wild tale you told last week, and now this week you have a supposed quote that doesn't even support your case to begin with and a startling, and yet predictable, inability to find said quote. So it just seems to have not been a good month for you.
The life of a liberal dem is hard. I sincerely wish you better luck next time. Developing a high regard for the truth would be a good start.
I'm a Republican -- ever since I first registered at age 18. Probably because I'm a PK, I'm a NICE and LOVING (Jesus said "love one another") Republican.
I'm so tired of your whining and unwillingness to do your own search. Here's one of many links:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...acist-violence
Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck...
As to the rest, congratulations on finding...nothing. Here is the relevant portion of your "link to nowhere".
Sheer political speculation fueled, I imagine, by fear and hatred. BTW, I would love to know what "false views" they are referring to.Quote:
In particular, Tucker Carlson, Fox News’ most popular personality, has pushed false views that are more easily embraced by some white people who are concerned about a loss of their political and social power.
Note that the word "white" is nowhere to be found in that quote. What TC said is clearly, patently true.Quote:
“I know that the left and all the gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World,” he said on his show last year. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening, actually, let’s just say it. That’s true.”
Gasp! TC was telling the truth and did so on 400 occasions??? What a white racist he is!!Quote:
A study of five years’ worth of Carlson’s show by The New York Times found 400 instances where he talked about Democratic politicians and others seeking to force demographic change through immigration.
You see, this is how we know you are a liberal dem. Liberal dems frequently read what is plainly true and, in an effort to make an end-run around it, begin changing the subject. You have pegged yourself.
Now if you can apologize for the wild tale you told last week and give us that much promised legal opinion, then you will have made some progress.
I do have a question for you. Black Americans routinely encourage black voter participation in efforts aimed ONLY at black Americans. They provide rides, gather ballots, run TV commercials, and do other activities in an effort at getting out the black vote. Now I have no problem with that, but if it's OK for black Americans to want to enhance their political leverage, then why would it be wrong if white Americans did the same thing? As your article put it, "some white people who are concerned about a loss of their political and social power." Is it unusual for groups to want to maintain political or social power? Not saying that is what is happening, but would it be wrong?
It isn't unusual but it's wrong. We're all in this together and must work together in order to have the best life. E.g., I spent Thursday at a hospital, getting lab work done and being checked by my hematologist. I happily interacted with other patients and many staffers -- white, Black, Filipino, Chinese, Indian, from teens to oldsters in their 80s. Yes, we CAN all get along.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You have a lot of problems reading and comprehending, don't you. Athos and I noticed that in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Gene Lyons, one of my favorite newspaper columnists (a Southern guy!) wrote in his newest column yesterday:
***Republican thinkers today call it “replacement theory,” the notion that Democrats are scheming to subvert American democracy by importing nonwhite immigrants to support leftist ideology.
It’s the particular passion of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. The New York Times has documented more than 400 mentions of the theory on his program since 2016 — keeping his audience of suspicious old coots sitting there anxiously clutching the TV remote.***
So you are opposed to organizations like BLM and other groups that emphasize black voting strength, or groups that appeal to the gay vote, or the female vote? Strange since you only seem to be opposed to it when it's allegedly coming from whites. Or for that matter groups that appeal to republican voters or democrat voters like you are also "wrong"? Serious question. It's an interesting topic.Quote:
It isn't unusual but it's wrong.
Reading comp? The usual plea when your articles don't support your views. Athos? He seems to have fled the scene.
I just now added more to my post above.
Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are. Are you opposed to Black voters, LGBT+ voters? Or a better question is, WHY are you opposed to their voting?
But that's a flat lie. They did not document 400 instances of "the theory" on his program. Even your own article, which I quoted above, said otherwise.Quote:
It’s the particular passion of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. The New York Times has documented more than 400 mentions of the theory on his program since 2016 — keeping his audience of suspicious old coots sitting there anxiously clutching the TV remote.***
So again. If what he is saying is true, then why is it such a problem? Do you simply not like the truth?
Now you're changing your tune. You said above that it was "wrong", but now it's suddenly "necessary". Is it wrong always?Quote:
Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are. Are you opposed to Black voters, LGBT+ voters?
I'm not opposed to anyone voting. It's the wonderful right of every American citizen. But you said groups were "wrong". Are they "wrong"?
This is what's wrong with so much of politics in America. Rational conversations cannot be had without accusations of racism or other insults being tossed about. "What? You said XYZ? Then you must be a hateful racist!!" It's really sickening.
I said, Mr. Literalist, that they're wrong because "We're all in this together and must work together in order to have the best life." Those groups were formed because whites were pushing them down and away.
So groups can be rightfully formed to advance common political agendas unless the groups are white? If, for instance, gay groups are lobbying for what they perceive to be in their own best interests, then how does that equate to all of us being in this together and working together?
As Pilate asked, "What is truth?"Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Why do they have to lobby?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Hmm. You answered the question with a question. At any rate, why does any group lobby? They do it to advance what is, in their view, the best interests of the GROUP. Not the common good, but the group good. Isn't that what you said you were opposed to?
Are you now aligning yourself with Pilate?
Groups lobby and demonstrate because the whites (especially men) in power refuse to allow them a voice. Why weren't women allowed to vote? Oh yeah, the only true woman was a submissive wife and mother preoccupied with the home and family affairs.
Well, you sure missed my point on that one! Gee whiz!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I think your point was valid at one time, but no more. Women do have the vote, anyone who wants to can vote, in some cases dead people vote, so voting is no problem. Voices are heard every election cycle. In Mississippi, for instance, there are more elected black local officials than in any other state in the country. The capitol city has a black mayor and a largely black city council.
I guess if I understand you correctly, everyone gets to have groups except for white people?
And especially white men?
The quote is from over a year ago . I tried to find the original transcript of the show or the video of that segment and could not . I don't know what context those words were used . But I repeat . The theory is a theory that the Dems invented and were happy to express it .
Just this week the theory was modified from the original
The original as expressed by the wack job shooter was that a Jewish cabal is bringing minorities into the country to replace white majorities. Variations of the theory replace a Jewish cabal with global elites. . Then the theory was again modified to say that it is a Dem strategy that racist whites (ie Republicans ) oppose .
The accusation serves a purpose. By conflating the conspiracy theories of maniacs like the Buffalo shooter with legitimate calls for border security and controls on illegal immigration, the left can smear all Republicans as white supremacists.
The Dems know that as French philosopher Auguste Comte said (paraphrase ) demography is destiny .It shapes communities ,economies and nations .As I already showed ,in the book ,'The Emerging Democratic Majority' ,the Dem assumption is that immigration, legal and illegal, will swell the ranks of Dem voters and hasten the emergence of a permanent Dem majority.. For years, they bragged that massive immigration would usher in a Dem majority .
So it is no secret . It is classic projection . They accuse Repubs of things they are guilty of.
Actually, I felt you were just being your usual evasive self.Quote:
Well, you sure missed my point on that one! Gee whiz!
Yep. That's the objective.Quote:
t it is a Dem strategy that racist whites (ie Republicans ) oppose .
Nope, you did not understand me correctly. *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Groups should not be necessary for political leverage.
If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us.
For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.
I did express it coherently. Wasn't that good enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you ever decide what you believe about groups and become able to express it cogently, then please get back with us. This is how it's done.
Quote:
For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.
I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.
So do you think groups like BLM and others who advance political agendas and advocate for political candidates are, in your view, wrong?Quote:
I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.
I don't understand how you can say we are, "together, working together to achieve the same goals." Perhaps that is what we SHOULD be, but not sure why you think that is what we are.
I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda. We are together, one unit, working together to achieve the same goals.
Yes, but I'm asking you for a practical application. Groups like BLM, or pro-life/pro-abortion groups, or gay groups are wrong in your view? They are certainly all pursuing political agendas, aren't they? Should they exist, or would you say they are as wrong as a white nationalist group?
I'm just digging a little in order to understand your reasoning.
Such a literalist you are!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary. Why can't we all get along, and constructively discuss our various needs and wants, come to a mutual understanding, and then an agreement or at least a compromise?
First you say, "I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda." Then you say, "No they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary," which means that, in your view, they are necessary. So you are advancing two competing views. Groups that should not exist are allowed to exist since they are "necessary". But if that is true, then white groups must also be allowed to exist since, in reality, they are advancing political agendas just as the other groups you give passes to.
What compromise would you be wiling to accept in the abortion debate?
Your reading comprehension needs help.
***"I said there shouldn't be groups to advance a political agenda." Then you say, "No they aren't wrong; they shouldn't be necessary," which means that, in your view, they are necessary.***
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS!!!!! I'M NOT "ADVANCING TWO COMPETING VIEWS"!!!
In post 49 you said, "It isn't unusual but it's wrong." But just above you said, "No, they aren't wrong;" And in post 51 you said, "Those groups shouldn't be necessary, but guess why they are..." So you are very clearly saying they ARE necessary. That's the funny thing about words. They can be referenced by others at a later time.
I don't think the problem is my reading comp. Perhaps the problem is your writing comp. Perhaps you are attempting to say many things and yet say nothing, and thus elude being held accountable for you beliefs? In this case, you seem to have forgotten what you wrote earlier. Too bad.
It would be helpful for you to make a cogent statement of what you believe about this, a statement you are willing to stand on. So far that has not happened. I still think it would look something like this.
Quote:
For me, I can state my belief with ease. I don't like groups based on arbitrary attributes like gender or skin color. I do agree with groups who have a common belief or position on an issue and want to see it advanced. Pro-life groups, for instance, are made up of both genders, many different races, and many different religions. There are even atheist pro-life groups. Political parties fit in there as do gay groups and a number of others. But to say that I am white and I want to join a white group, then what issue are we advancing that could not be held by non-whites as well? So I'm not a fan of groups based on skin color.
yawn !
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 PM. |