Dems have no leaders. Even they know it.

[El Luchador]

23 minutes ago, red viking said:

Lol. Tell my wife that.  

Has she ever complained that your masculinity was toxic. 

[red viking]

10 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Has she ever complained that your masculinity was toxic. 

A little (mainly because Iike combat sports and dark movies and documentaries) but more that I don't recognize my male privilege enough. 

Edited June 3 by red viking

[Caveira]

54 minutes ago, red viking said:

A little (mainly because Iike combat sports and dark movies and documentaries) but more that I don't recognize my male privilege enough. 

If you think you have male privilege… whatever that is.  You 100% have low T.  

[red viking]

17 minutes ago, Caveira said:

If you think you have male privilege… whatever that is.  You 100% have low T.  

...so extrapolating that, I must have high T if I think I'm getting screwed over because I'm a guy, right?

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

...so extrapolating that, I must have high T if I think I'm getting screwed over because I'm a guy, right?

Are real men getting screwed over?

[red viking]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Are real men getting screwed over?

I don't think getting an advantage or disadvantage has much to do with being a "real man" or "fake man" but maybe you can explain. Do just the wimps and transgender get screwed over? 

Or when you use the term "screwed over" are you jokingly talking about how some guys get that in prison? 

[Caveira]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

I don't think getting an advantage or disadvantage has much to do with being a "real man" or "fake man" but maybe you can explain. Do just the wimps and transgender get screwed over? 

Or when you use the term "screwed over" are you jokingly talking about how some guys get that in prison? 

You used the term boss.    Read below   What did you mean by that  

 

11 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I must have high T if I think I'm getting screwed over because I'm a guy, right?

 

[JimmySpeaks]

4 hours ago, fishbane said:

Who is?  Isn't it kind of a wash?  The state with the most illegal immigrants are California, Florida, Texas, New York, and New Jersey and there are almost equal amounts in CA, NY, and NJ as there are in FL and TX so the net gain in house seats/electoral college votes between red and blue states is ~0. 

Is this a win for a loss for the Republican/Democrat Party?  It was not that long ago that Florida was a swing state and many of the people moving to these states are attracted by 0% income tax and come from high tax blue states like CA and NY.  NY and CA losing votes might seem like a loss for the Democrats and win for the Republicans, but if Florida becomes a swing state again maybe the opposite will be true.  FL resident Donald Trump wont be on the next presidential ballot, but maybe Rubio or DeSantis will be the nominee giving the Republicans a built in edge in the state. 

California, NY are losing population without adding unlawfuls.  Texas and Florida aren’t.  

[fishbane]

56 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

California, NY are losing population without adding unlawfuls.  Texas and Florida aren’t.  

I don't think this is true though I am not sure what you are trying to say.  From the last census the number of illegal immigrants in NY, Texas, and Florida has increased.  Of the states you mentioned I think only CA has seen a decrease in illegal immigrant residents. NY has lost population even with the increase in illegal immigrants in the state.

It is unclear which political party these shifts will benefit.  Florida and Texas gain seats/electoral votes, however their population gain is not explained entirely by illegal immigrants who cannot vote in federal elections.  Much of the increase comes from US citizens moving out of states like NY and CA and are presumably less likely to vote for a republican candidate than the existing population in these states.  

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, fishbane said:

I don't think this is true though I am not sure what you are trying to say.  From the last census the number of illegal immigrants in NY, Texas, and Florida has increased.  Of the states you mentioned I think only CA has seen a decrease in illegal immigrant residents. NY has lost population even with the increase in illegal immigrants in the state.

It is unclear which political party these shifts will benefit.  Florida and Texas gain seats/electoral votes, however their population gain is not explained entirely by illegal immigrants who cannot vote in federal elections.  Much of the increase comes from US citizens moving out of states like NY and CA and are presumably less likely to vote for a republican candidate than the existing population in these states.  

You just agreed with me. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, fishbane said:

I don't think this is true though I am not sure what you are trying to say.  From the last census the number of illegal immigrants in NY, Texas, and Florida has increased.  Of the states you mentioned I think only CA has seen a decrease in illegal immigrant residents. NY has lost population even with the increase in illegal immigrants in the state.

It is unclear which political party these shifts will benefit.  Florida and Texas gain seats/electoral votes, however their population gain is not explained entirely by illegal immigrants who cannot vote in federal elections.  Much of the increase comes from US citizens moving out of states like NY and CA and are presumably less likely to vote for a republican candidate than the existing population in these states.  

But it’s one party letting them in.   Absent of a “good strategy” to win the census battle give me one good argument why one party lets them in and buses to places of their choosing and one party doesn’t.   If they aren’t smart enough to make it work for them it still is the same kind of sinister power hungry nonsense.  

[JimmySpeaks]

8 minutes ago, Caveira said:

But it’s one party letting them in.   Absent of a “good strategy” to win the census battle give me one good argument why one party lets them in and buses to places of their choosing and one party doesn’t.   If they aren’t smart enough to make it work for them it still is the same kind of sinister power hungry nonsense.  

Not to mention there’s more than the five states he listed. Places like Minnesota would be losing population if not for unlawfuls. 

[fishbane]

17 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You just agreed with me. 

So your point was that it is unclear which party will benefit from this.

13 minutes ago, Caveira said:

But it’s one party letting them in.   Absent of a “good strategy” to win the census battle give me one good argument why one party lets them in and buses to places of their choosing and one party doesn’t.   If they aren’t smart enough to make it work for them it still is the same kind of sinister power hungry nonsense.  

I also find this confusing.  My understanding is that recently it has been the democrats credited with allowing illegal border crossings.  Under the two Trump terms there has been increased enforcement at the border whereas Biden allocated resources differently allowing significantly more border crossings.   However, regarding busing of illegal immigrants, I thought was a program run by Republican governors in border states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida where they paid for busses to take undocumented immigrants to the city of their choice.  In practice these were always "sanctuary cities" in blue areas such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC.   

So it would seem to me that one party letting them in (Democrats) and another party busing them around (Republicans). If the net effect of the illegal immigrants is extra electoral votes/representation in congress for Democrats then perhaps those Republican Governors were wrong to bus the migrants to the blue states.  Instead if the population growth in the border states results in more Republicans in Congress and Florida and Texas gaining electoral votes they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps Democrats will see their liberal immigration policy as a mistake.   Which party is sinister and power hungry?  The one that let them in or the one that bused them to their final destination?

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, fishbane said:

So your point was that it is unclear which party will benefit from this.

I also find this confusing.  My understanding is that recently it has been the democrats credited with allowing illegal border crossings.  Under the two Trump terms there has been increased enforcement at the border whereas Biden allocated resources differently allowing significantly more border crossings.   However, regarding busing of illegal immigrants, I thought was a program run by Republican governors in border states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida where they paid for busses to take undocumented immigrants to the city of their choice.  In practice these were always "sanctuary cities" in blue areas such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC.   

So it would seem to me that one party letting them in (Democrats) and another party busing them around (Republicans). If the net effect of the illegal immigrants is extra electoral votes/representation in congress for Democrats then perhaps those Republican Governors were wrong to bus the migrants to the blue states.  Instead if the population growth in the border states results in more Republicans in Congress and Florida and Texas gaining electoral votes they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps Democrats will see their liberal immigration policy as a mistake.   Which party is sinister and power hungry?  The one that let them in or the one that bused them to their final destination?

It costs money and puts a great demand on the system.  Now you know why they bused them to blue areas.   Oh and in those rich blue areas they didn’t like it. 

Edited June 4 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

16 minutes ago, fishbane said:

So your point was that it is unclear which party will benefit from this.

I also find this confusing.  My understanding is that recently it has been the democrats credited with allowing illegal border crossings.  Under the two Trump terms there has been increased enforcement at the border whereas Biden allocated resources differently allowing significantly more border crossings.   However, regarding busing of illegal immigrants, I thought was a program run by Republican governors in border states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida where they paid for busses to take undocumented immigrants to the city of their choice.  In practice these were always "sanctuary cities" in blue areas such as New York, Chicago, Denver, and Washington, DC.   

So it would seem to me that one party letting them in (Democrats) and another party busing them around (Republicans). If the net effect of the illegal immigrants is extra electoral votes/representation in congress for Democrats then perhaps those Republican Governors were wrong to bus the migrants to the blue states.  Instead if the population growth in the border states results in more Republicans in Congress and Florida and Texas gaining electoral votes they wouldn't have otherwise, perhaps Democrats will see their liberal immigration policy as a mistake.   Which party is sinister and power hungry?  The one that let them in or the one that bused them to their final destination?

Again there’s more than five states 

[fishbane]

4 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

It costs money and puts a great demand on the system.  Now you know why they bused them to blue areas.   Oh and in those rich blue areas they didn’t like it. 

I think that's accurate.  Similarly, I believe that the Democrats' immigration policy had more short terms objectives.  It wasn't a long terms master plan to import residents to shift apportionment in their favour over the next census.  It also wasn't a plan to import illegal immigrants that would in the following decades either become citizens and/or have kids that would be citizens who would vote preferentially for the Democratic party.  This is a plan that couldn't come up with a coherent strategy for the last presidential election they weren't executing a master plan with a 10-30 year horizon that could be thwarted by a fleet of buses.

[fishbane]

13 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Again there’s more than five states 

Yes 45 more.  What is the point?  I thought we agreed that it is unclear that illegal immigrants benefit apportionment in favour of one party or the other.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Yes 45 more.  What is the point?  I thought we agreed that it is unclear that illegal immigrants benefit apportionment in favour of one party or the other.

We didn’t agree That one party is trying to sway the core vote.   Because one of them defo is.    If their strategy isn’t working isn’t relevant.  

Edited June 4 by Caveira

[fishbane]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

We didn’t agree That one party is trying to sway the core vote.   Because one of them defo is.    If their strategy isn’t working isn’t relevant.  

When I said we I was talking about me and JimmySpeaks not you.  Unless you're just signed into the wrong account...

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

When I said we I was talking about me and JimmySpeaks not you.  Unless you're just signed into the wrong account...

Doesn’t seem like a real argument. 

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, Caveira said:

Doesn’t seem like a real argument. 

And you have presented any evidence to argue with.  If you want me to argue with myself - no thanks.  You can do that with your other account lol. 

[scourge165]

14 hours ago, red viking said:

Sort of a dumb post considering we're still 3.5 yrs from presidential election. Plenty of candidates will  emerge, and some of them will be solid. Personally, I've liked Buttegieg, but a lot of moderate bigots won't vote for him simply because he's homosexual.

Two things I can almost guarantee, and it is very bad news for the wingers. 1) We'll have  a Democrat  in white house in 2028, unless the wingers can drastically escalate their voter suppression tactics. 2) He/she will be a lot nastier than Biden or Obama were. Maybe just as nasty, radical and polarizing as Trump. Get ready; it's going to be a wild ride. 

Mark Kelly is my choice. 

I liked Fetterman, but he's had too many issues. 

Kelly should have been the VP nominee. 

Beshear is another candidate. Wes Moore. Mark Cuban could be one. 

JB would have to lose 30-40 pounds to win the election. Fat guys normally don't do well...the current POTUS being the exception(I of course mean in the modern era, not going back to the likes of Taft). 

 

There will be others. Ossoff would be an interesting candidate. 

 

This is all assuming that Trump doesn't "run" again as he's said he would. 

 

[JimmySpeaks]

8 hours ago, fishbane said:

Yes 45 more.  What is the point?  I thought we agreed that it is unclear that illegal immigrants benefit apportionment in favour of one party or the other.

No we didn’t agree on that. 

[scourge165]

8 hours ago, fishbane said:

When I said we I was talking about me and JimmySpeaks not you.  Unless you're just signed into the wrong account...

Holy...that would make SOOO much sense. 

One after doing a good snort of adderall(everyone wants to be like Trump if you're MAGA)... and the other is after he's coming down...a little bit. 

[scourge165]

8 hours ago, fishbane said:

I think that's accurate.  Similarly, I believe that the Democrats' immigration policy had more short terms objectives.  It wasn't a long terms master plan to import residents to shift apportionment in their favour over the next census.  It also wasn't a plan to import illegal immigrants that would in the following decades either become citizens and/or have kids that would be citizens who would vote preferentially for the Democratic party.  This is a plan that couldn't come up with a coherent strategy for the last presidential election they weren't executing a master plan with a 10-30 year horizon that could be thwarted by a fleet of buses.

LOL..."thwarted by a fleet of buses." 

Anyone remember when DeSantis was talking about his state being overrun by the undocumented and then he had to take in those seeking asylum from Texas just so he could fulfill his big publicity stunt and send them to Martha Vineyard? 

 

Look, this is a really stupid argument... that this was part of a some plan to get them to vote. They can't vote. Democrats have made no attempt to make them eligible to vote.

There was ONE bill and it was in New York where it was proposed that PERMANENT RESIDENTS be allowed to vote in local elections. 

So that included people people who'd lived in the Country for 30 years, who had Green Cards, who worked and raised families. This nonsense about some master plan is just "the great replacement theory," in Southern Strategy verbiage. 

 

Lets also remember that the last administration tried to pass a massive and comprehensive immigration reform bill. One written by Republicans, the Senate agreed to it. Trump called and shut it down as he wanted to be able to run on the border. Now...since I can see in your quotes who you're arguing with, it's probably not worth mentioning how many of the Countries that people are trying to flee are countries in which we sowed the seed for chaos and dysfunction in the 1980s under Reagan by running the largest drug cartel the world had seen(at least since the British Empire) while using those funds to then undermine the existing Governments and keep countries in a state of civil war, the impact of which is still felt, but that would go over their heads. 

 

So it's simpler to just point out that after Obama..."The deporter in chief" for...better of worse based on your opinion(5.3M deported by Obama, less than 1M deported under Trump) and then Trump who spoke...pretty negatively about our friends to the South, there was an influx in asylum seekers. 

 

Now if you understand the law, you know the U.S. Constitution guarantees asylum seekers the right to a fair hearing through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which applies to all "persons" within the United States, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

 

So what they tried to do was increase the number of border patrol agents...and then MOST importantly, increase the number of judges hearing these cases. You could have shortened the time from YEARS down to 6 weeks. 

But again, that wouldn't get Trump elected. 

 

 

We need to have strong borders. There's no question about that.

We also cannot just round up everyone who is here that's not a citizen or with a Green Card. That's...cutting off your nose to spite the brown people. 

If for no other reason than go with the Greed Angle. We NEED the workers. Though we shouldn't take advantage, but deporting every undocumented immigrants going to cost trillions in the cost of actually doing it and it'll cost trillions to our economy and cause late 60s, 1970s, early 80s like inflation.