We Need More Immigrants, not Fewer

[Gadianton]

Wow, if Cato says it -- then they must be Rino's, right Ajax?

Today, the government now uses more sophisticated independent analysis on unlawful entries to check how reliable the surveillance data are.

This point struck me because if Trump takes over again, and gets his way seizing as much government power as possible, do you think there will be any third parties conducting independent analysis, or will he insist that only favorable news is reported?

What do you think Ajax? Do you think if Trump takes over, he'll be open to facts and constructive criticism, or do you think he'll demand only to hear that he's right and that his policies work?

I think Ajax would most likely agree that Trump will not be open to objectivity and criticism, but at the same time, I don't think he cares, because it's mostly about somebody standing up and running their mouth and pissing off liberals, not actually accomplishing anything.

[ajax18]

Wow, if Cato says it -- then they must be Rino's, right Ajax?

Today, the government now uses more sophisticated independent analysis on unlawful entries to check how reliable the surveillance data are.

This point struck me because if Trump takes over again, and gets his way seizing as much government power as possible, do you think there will be any third parties conducting independent analysis, or will he insist that only favorable news is reported?

What do you think Ajax? Do you think if Trump takes over, he'll be open to facts and constructive criticism, or do you think he'll demand only to hear that he's right and that his policies work?

I think Ajax would most likely agree that Trump will not be open to objectivity and criticism, but at the same time, I don't think he cares, because it's mostly about somebody standing up and running their mouth and pissing off liberals, not actually accomplishing anything.

Hiring more people to process and legalize more illegal immigrants is what Democrats mean when they say getting something accomplished. How do Democrats stop workers from voting against politicians who inflate their currency and raise their taxes? Just take out a loan against the taxpayer and use the money to bring in more people to vote against the people being fleeced. You might call it shrewd politics. I call it treason.

[Gadianton]

Hiring more people to process and legalize more illegal immigrants is what Democrats mean when they say getting something accomplished. How do Democrats stop workers from voting against politicians who inflate their currency and raise their taxes? Just take out a loan against the taxpayer and use the money to bring in more people to vote against the people being fleeced. You might call it shrewd politics. I call it treason.

I'll take your silence on the point about Trump and criticism that you agree, that Trump will never allow an independent audit demonstrate that a policy of his isn't working as intended.

As for the above -- a point you bring up all the time lately when you can't think of anything else to say -- if Democrats are so good at bringing in illegals, illegally making them legal, and then getting them to vote Democrat to stay in power, then why did they need to rig voting machines and create truckloads of fake Biden ballots also? Seems like overkill.

[ajax18]

if Democrats are so good at bringing in illegals, illegally making them legal, and then getting them to vote Democrat to stay in power, then why did they need to rig voting machines and create truckloads of fake Biden ballots also? Seems like overkill.

People who say the election was rigged through the voting machines do damage the cause. The election was rigged in that the DOJ put their thumb on the scales with social media to silence criticism of Biden and his lies about Hunter because it was Russian disinformation. The CIA put out knowlingly false statements that the Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation. The election was rigged by changing the voting laws and procedures that produced a way higher voter turnout from indifferent voters by mail. Democrats are also much better funded and able to afford armies of ballot harvesters to work the nursing homes, group homes, etc. In my view Democracy itself is flawed by the idea that someone who pays no income tax gets the same vote as someone who is on the hook for Income and social security tax for the rest of his life.

Overkill, as long as the race is somewhat close the left will use any tool available no matter how unethical or antidemocratic to remain in power and feel justified in doing so. They've admitted as much saying, "Demography is destiny." Think about it from the perspective of a wealthy Democrat from Silicon Valley. For them things couldn't be better. They have cheap housekeepers, cheap landscapers, contruction workers, cheap Nannies to raise their kids for them, walk their dogs, etc. Their kids don't go to public schools that are overcrowded and underfunded due to massive numbers of non-English speaking Latino children. They have private schools anyway. Their kids aren't being forced to learn from home to provide shelter for illegal immigrants. And for the most part, they're not competing in the labor market with illegal immigrants. As long as you have a (D) by your name, the partisan political justice system will let you slide on tax cheating. So yeah, darn right they want to keep that border wide open and unenforced.

[Chap]

The election was rigged by changing the voting laws and procedures that produced a way higher voter turnout from indifferent voters by mail.

I am certainly NOT an indifferent voter - but I certainly prefer the convenience of voting by mail, and usually do. Please tell me what I am doing wrong.

Are you suggesting that the more difficult it is made to vote, the more 'democratic' the election will be?

If, for instance, everybody has to queue up for hours to get into the polling station, you will simply make it difficult for anybody who is old or sick to vote at all. That seems simply perverse.

Please, for once, answer on this specific point rather than simply reading your next talking point off the list and ignoring my question.

[ajax18]

I am certainly NOT an indifferent voter - but I certainly prefer the convenience of voting by mail, and usually do. Please tell me what I am doing wrong.

Mail in voting allows for more potential fraud. It should be election day, not election year, paper ballots, and partisan polling observers. I don't think voter ID is too much to ask, but then again I also believe that only those who pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits should be voting, otherwise democracy is no better than 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

[Doctor Steuss]

I also believe that only those who pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits should be voting

I assume in order to be consistent, you also think people who pay less in taxes than collected benefits shouldn't be able to hold political office?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

[Chap]

I am certainly NOT an indifferent voter - but I certainly prefer the convenience of voting by mail, and usually do. Please tell me what I am doing wrong.

Mail in voting allows for more potential fraud. It should be election day, not election year, paper ballots, and partisan polling observers. [...]

In the UK, mail in voting is accepted as a normal part of the electoral process. Please have a look at the reports of the independent Electoral Commission to see how little fraud takes place:

Electoral fraud data

Are Americans more liable to cheat than British people? I doubt that. Maybe the difference is that so far in the UK we have not had the experience of having a party leader who lost an election claiming that he really got more votes than his opponent, but massive fraud made it look as though he lost when he did not. That's where the mistrust and conspiracy theories begin.

Trump simply could not, and cannot ever, accept that he is the one who lost. For him, that would be like not existing. He is prepared to wreck anything , including the Constitution, to avoid that.

[Gadianton]

People who say the election was rigged through the voting machines do damage the cause.

Well, Ajax, that's a start. We all have to start somewhere.

The election was rigged in that the DOJ put their thumb on the scales with social media to silence criticism of Biden and his lies about Hunter because it was Russian disinformation. The CIA put out knowlingly false statements that the Biden laptop was likely Russian disinformation.

Real reason 1: the DOJ downplayed Hunter Biden.

The election was rigged by changing the voting laws and procedures that produced a way higher voter turnout from indifferent voters by mail.

Real reason 2: vote by mail

Democrats are also much better funded and able to afford armies of ballot harvesters to work the nursing homes

Real reason 3: Dems are better funded and register

Of course there was also reason .5, bringing illegals in and illegally making them legal and they become dems.

You do realize that you're appropriating your own party's talking point? While Donald Trump would agree with all of your points, he hasn't meant any of them when he's said the election was stolen from him. You're trying to walk the claim back to make it sound less stupid, which is admirable in a way. When Trump said, "Stop the count, I've won!" he'd already taken all the pre-voting factors into account, and no matter how many nursing homes the Dems raided or how many illegals they brought in and illegally made citizens, Trump meant he'd beaten the Dems despite all the cheating you're talking about. Only the factors of rigged voting machines and truckloads of fake votes explained the fact that it appeared he lost. And these are shallow lies he's doubled and 60x downed on.

Remember in Dune when the Reverend Mother suspected that Paul might actually be the Kwisatz Haderach, and she thought to herself, "yes, but will he be ours to control?"

Don't forget that Trump isn't one of you. He isn't Christian or conservative in the way you are, like Silicon Valley liberals you complained about, he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and never has had to so much to drive his own car. All the illegals have benefited him as cheap labor for his hotels. He isn't interested in compromise even within your party; threatening others who run against him and so on. Everyone in your party is scared to disagree with him and quickly fall behind him knowing that if he wins disloyalty to HIM (not America, or the working class, or anything else) will be punished. You have to see the problem here. I'm sure you do, but I'm sure you're willing to take your chances. It still must be better than having a Dem as president. Well, it most certainly will be for a select few people in politics and government who earn their positions out of loyalty to Trump and no other factor. But it's unlikely much will trickle down to the rest of you, and even if it does initially, what you don't know is what objectives he will have once he doesn't need to compromise anymore.