Political Spergatory or How I Learned To Love /pol

Morgan_ said:
Hot take: "Voter fraud" is actually quite prevalent it just takes the form of misinformation, closing pol locations and gerrymandering. Any guesses as to who benefits from these the most, especially closing pol centers and gerrymandering?
Click to expand...

Why does closing polling centers matter when you mail them all in? Gerrymandering benefits Dems (currently) the most btw.
 
TheGM said:
Shit, I forgot all about that guy.

When the planets align under the blood Moon above the ruins Etn'ah, the portents are read at the stroke of Zo'ghr Nah while the harmony of silence reaches it's zenith, then Trump will make his move.

Something along those lines I guess.
Click to expand...

SYDNEY POWELL: "You sir, should unmask"
DONALD TRUMP: "Indeed?"
RUDY GIULIANI: "Indeed it's time, we have all laid aside disguise but you"
DONALD TRUMP: "I wear no mask"
 
Malpais Dominus said:
I liked all the pictures of people kind of standing around the Capitol confused as to what to do next because actually getting up and doing something wasn't part of "the plan".
Click to expand...
Well do they look like someone with a plan to you? You know what they are? Dogs chasing cars. They wouldn't know what to do with it if they caught it. You know they just do things. Politicians have plans. The media has Plans. Trump has plans. You know, they are schemers. Schemers trying to control their little worlds. They are not schemers.
 
TorontoReign said:
Why does closing polling centers matter when you mail them all in? Gerrymandering benefits Dems (currently) the most btw.
Click to expand...
It benefits dems the most? Polling places were closed in Ohio during the election to where an area that had nearly 1 million people in it has 4 polling places and in an area where there were tens of thousands they had around 10. Guess which one was democrat? In Georgia they also closed polling places during the election and the runoff that were in dem majority areas. I'm not familiar with anywhere that benefits dems with gerrymandering but I guess there are some? Most of it is done by republicans though.
 
DarkCorp said:
Dayglow

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/10/trump-latinos-biden-2020/616901/

There are articles like these out there about latinos that do not endorse amnesty. There certainly aren't a lot of them but absolutely, they believe that people should come legally.

While a majority vote dem, there are small segments of latinos that view illegal immigration as harmful and vote for the GOP accordingly.
Click to expand...

You still have yet to answer my question about precisely how illegal immigrants harm one's ability to immigrate legally.
 
unknown.png

Thank you Hezbollah, please send a unit of suicide bombers to USA to liberate my people so we may have fair elections.
 
Dayglowdrifter said:
You still have yet to answer my question about precisely how illegal immigrants harm one's ability to immigrate legally.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I said that specifically? If I DID, then it was probably in reference to the quota system and partially addressed previously.

TBH, most agree that open borders is a bad idea. No country can just take in ever increasing numbers of migrants. Every amnesty is literally an insult to someone who wants to come and is going through the process.

Then we go back to the fact that it is no coincidence that the largest number of current illegals are latinos. If we were to grant amnesty, should it not be fair? If we were to grant a limited number of amnesty, should it not be distributed equitably? I don't like amnesty but it is a compromise. As of now, amnesty overwhelmingly benefits latinos as they have a much easier time getting in.

Lastly, as I mentioned before, large amounts of illegal immigration draw bad publicity, like those caravans. Guess where most of these caravans come from? Why is the largest group of illegal latinos comprised of mexicans? Why do you think AZ SB 1070 and Trump happened? It was because people were sick and fucking tired of libs just trying to let everyone in via mass amnesty.

If we were to compromise on amnesty, why should it mostly benefit a small group of people?
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
I don't know if I said that specifically? If I DID, then it was probably in reference to the quota system and partially addressed previously.

TBH, most agree that open borders is a bad idea. No country can just take in ever increasing numbers of migrants.
Click to expand...

I think there's quite a large clusterfuck from the fact that people really poorly define "Open Borders". Apart from radical anarchists or children on Twitter who's engagement in politics is purely aesthetic, I really don't think there's many who define "Open Borders" in the most literal sense of the term. I have read enough skull-fuckingly boring bureaucratic nonsense policy documents that utilize the term to think otherwise.

It's politically convenient for anti-immigrant groups to conflate and confuse the term in order to suggest the most literal version, and it isn't helped by your odd megaphone wielding online mega-leftie or just the completely politically ignorant.
 
Morgan_ said:
Reminds me of "abolish the police" stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly that. There were a lot of very cool looking policy initiatives wrapped up in that blanket regarding police reform and demilitarization but the slogan was beyond retarded and wasn't helped by complete mouth-breathers unironically supporting the literal version and soiling the idea of legitimate reform for just about everyone.

Worst one was when "Abolish the police" and "Defund the police" carried on the populism wave over to the UK, a country where the Conservative Party's defunding of the police has had absolutely shockingly bad results on crime rates.
 
It is pretty close to it.

We have a mass group of people who entered the country illegally. Libs then push for amnesty for same mass group of people. Same group is granted amnesty and essentially has jumped ahead of all those who are slogging through the legal bureaucratic red tape.

Dayglow

Do you disagree that there is at least SOME latinos who came in illegally and became legalised due to amnesty? If so, then it figures that these folks, most of whom have no skills end up taking lower end jobs. Would not the revolving door of amnesty diminish the job prospects of the former?

I will attempt to find a link but I am not optimistic as it reeks of hypocrisy and who willingly admits to being a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
Do you disagree that there is at least SOME latinos who came in illegally and became legalised due to amnesty?
Click to expand...

There are some, yes, but that still doesn't explain how illegal immigrants harm the ability of others to immigrate legally which is what you seemed to be insinuating when you said these policies were saying "fuck those who did it the legal way"

DarkCorp said:
Would not the revolving door of amnesty diminish the job prospects of the former?
Click to expand...

People who have resources to attain citizenship legally (a lengthy and expensive process) generally do not proceed to work low-skilled jobs commonly attributed to undocumented immigrants, no.
 
Daygliw

That is what you meant.

No, illegal immigration does not stop someone from immigrating legallly at the moment. However, the U.S. does not and can not handle uncontrolled acceptance either. If we keep giving amnesty, the ability for people to enter legally may be affected eventually.

However, it sure is an insult to all those who are applying legally.

As to your statement, it is blatantly false. I see your no stranger to assumption either.

My family had a sponsor but it did not mean my dad or mom had perfect english, forget connections. Dad worked at a restaurant and mom worked at a launderer. We had help from family but those jobs are far from 'skilled'.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top