Why Democrats don't want a wall.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Lumenari

Say WHAT? Your whole OP is about illegals voting. You then made an assertion that you were party to a felony without explaining that you turned them in. What exactly else should I have commented on?

Because my whole OP wasn't all about illegals voting.

It is all about expanding a voter base through legislation.

I did type the sentence that illegal voting is a component of this.

That all you can do is focus on that aspect of it baffles me.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Lumenari

Ever heard of Occam’s Razor?

Occam's Razor doesn't mean that the stupidest and most politically expedient answer is probably the correct answer though.

a reply to: Lumenari


Your OP is certainly plausible and I agree with it.

But, is your OP not about illegal aliens being allowed to vote in Texas so that they take that state over as well as Cali? Did I miss something there?

originally posted by: Lumenari
Moderates, Conservatives and some Democrats have pointed out lately the hypocrisy of Nancy, Check and Co. If they were all for wall and border security less than a decade ago, why the complete opposition now?

I realize that this is the current talking point, but you do know that you're comparing apples to oranges... don't you?

Moderates, Conservatives, and some Democrats were all for sections of wall and fencing, less than a decade ago, in areas that it made fiscal and practical sense to build. That's a far cry from the Pacific-to-Gulf wall being suggested today. There are many areas along our southern border that the conditions and terrain make a wall unpractical and/or unnecessary, so starting or approving such a project would be a waste when other options like sensors, drones, or more border agents would be far more cost-efficient and effective.

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

This is going to happen to all of us if we don’t wake up and see that they will use every group until there is no one left ......then what?

a reply to: Lumenari

right off the rip you are not exactly truthful

from the previous proposal

Amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to direct the Secretary to provide at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending: (1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry (requiring installation of an interlocking surveillance camera system by May 30, 2007, and fence completion by May 30, 2008); (3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas;

5-10 mile stretches in specific sections is a far cry from the wall as it is proposed now.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Aallanon
IMO

Illegals are counted in the census. Fact.

The number of people in each state dictates the number of representatives. Fact

Sanctuary cities and states attract more Illegals. Fact

Therefore Illegals (and Dems) grow their sphere of influence. Fact

Illegals vote. IMO

If Illegals get the right to vote game over. Fact

My daughter's husband is Hispanic and the majority of his family is illegal. (San Antonio)

They are paid to be bussed to 4 different counties and vote with 4 different names and addresses each Presidential election. And interestingly enough, they got the gig again this midterm election as well.

Illegals vote. FACT.

You should get a hold of Judicial Watch and fill them in on the specifics of this voter fraud. If you have some meat they will call you on the phone to discuss the matter.

To reiterate, I turned them in to the Texas Secretary of State, a decade ago.

They don't care.

Did cost me my relationship with my daughter for a long time, though.

Think about what you just wrote. "They don't care" Who are they?
This is my biggest issue with the wall (i'm not a Dem). Exactly what you mentioned. People inside America (law enforcement, politicians etc.) don't want to do the right thing. The wall will prevent a few, but it's all the other stuff that we are dealing with.

Let's be honest, it is both democrats and republicans that have benefitted from illegal (cheap) labor. I think this entire subject has a lot more to do with the wealthy vs. the poor, and keeping up appearances vs. doing the right thing.

originally posted by: redmage


Moderates, Conservatives, and some Democrats were all for sections of wall and fencing, less than a decade ago, in areas that it made fiscal and practical sense to build. That's a far cry from the Pacific-to-Gulf wall being suggested today.

glad someone gets it

a reply to: Aallanon

Look at it the other way -

Even if those illegals don't vote, they still count for purposes of determining and drawing Representatives districts. So for someone like Ocasio-Cortez, it means that her heavily Hispanic district likely has less eligible voters than someone out in flyover who still has a heavily white district, whether a red or blue district. So Ocasio-Cortez has to win over less overall votes then that other person will. Indeed, she only had to win 17,000 or so votes in order to win her primary when districts are drawn to have between 700,000 and 800,000 people in them each.

Either way, having large numbers of illegals is win for them. They either dilute the numbers of voters they need to win to very few or they have voters voting who shouldn't be they can pander to.

originally posted by: Lumenari
I made this thread because I had to explain it to a liberal family member last night.

Moderates, Conservatives and some Democrats have pointed out lately the hypocrisy of Nancy, Check and Co. If they were all for wall and border security less than a decade ago, why the complete opposition now?

Where does it say, how do you know that ‘Moderates, Conservatives and ‘some’ Democrats were all for a wall a decade ago??

Some have taken the obvious reason... Orange Man bad and it's just political posturing.

Others have pointed out that Nancy (won the gavel by two votes... supposedly) feels that her position now will only continue be held if she becomes the face of #resist... So she can only retain power if she gives the President absolutely nothing.

Okay I have a little time today.

You are saying above that Nancy Pelosi can only retain power (I assume you mean the Speakership) if she gives #45 nothing.

1) The democratic party votes for the Speakership because the Democratic Party is in the majority of seats in the House of Representatives - and while I, and you perhaps, would have prefered another Democratic in the Speakership - maintaining that 'powerful' position next to nothing to do with the 'WALL'.

2) You appear to take the 'orange man bad' meme and turn it into a 'pelosi woman bad' meme. Do you not see how that generic meme is stating an ideological bias in either case? It has nothing to do with factual reality.

Both points of view have their merit, however I believe that the real reason is a longer term goal the DNC is following.

Please clarify your stated two point of view - and what about all the other points of view.

Now onto the California Bashing - which I assume is the point of this post. That we need a physical WALL between the US and Mexico.

To understand it, we have to at first take a historical look at California politics. A quick background...

LA Times Article

Nice article tracing the ebb and flow of red vs blue in the state. Nothing on the wall or border security. Just an factual accounting of counties voting Republican or Democratic in any given presidential election year.

With the exception of the Goldwater race (a topic all its own and an excellent example of how the Democrats got VERY good at smearing a candidate), California was pretty pro-Republican since 1948.

After the Reagan Revolution, the DNC had pretty much given up on California.

Anything to back this up???

Then came the Democrat's saving grace... immigration and the upswing of the Latino population.

California’s Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on immigration. After the party closely tied itself to Proposition 187, a controversial California ballot measure that denied public services to people in the country illegally, Republicans struggled to win back the state's immigrant population. Democratic candidates have won decisively in every election since 1992 by performing well in the most populous areas. Despite failing to win the presidency, Hillary Clinton won a higher percentage of votes than any candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

1) Where is the quote from?
2) Two probably correct that the increasing Hispanic population of the state tends to vote Democratic. And just what is the reason they do so – middle class Hispanics are, in my experience, pretty conservative but the republican party rarely represents anything other then big business as does the establishment Democrats. Therefore working class Hispanics don’t turn out in large numbers.

I can’t find any hard number on what percentage of eligible Hispanic voters actually voted. But here is a link to numbers of how those that did vote, voted.

www.pewresearch.org...

So California, a state that once had a balanced budget and turned itself into a world-class economy, was turned through the Latino vote and lax immigration policy enforcement into a Progressive Utopia.

It was officially called the California Balanced Budget Act. It requires the state legislature to pass a balanced budget every year, which means that budgeted recurrent expenditure, including repayment of past debt, does not exceed estimated revenue.

2004 California Proposition 58 - Wikipedia


en.wikipedia.org...

WHAT IS THAT AGAIN? YOU SAY?

Illegal immigration was a component of this.

Of what? Contributing to a ‘world-class economy’ or balancing the budget?

My take is that immigration does contribute to the biggest US state economy and the 5th largest economy in the world.

SoOo... the DNC has already conquered California and now has a blueprint of how to do it.

Now it is time for Texas.

If the DNC can take Texas and in doing so its electoral votes, they will have in essence taken control of the Electoral College.

So at this point, they NEED illegal immigration. Especially in Texas and Arizona.

The end game is very simple... ownership of a voter block that is the fastest growing part of American population right now.

I joke sometimes and use the term "undocumented Democratic voter" but it is true, statistically.

So when you point out (rightly) to other people the hypocrisy of the left in their stance on the wall right now, keep in mind that it has nothing to do with compassion towards immigrants or the "immorality" of a wall.

Just what ‘hypocrisy’ on the left? The left acknowledges that immigrants do contribute to a healthy economy. What are you talking about?

Remember, many undocumented immigrants come from Europe, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and many Asian Countries. How is the WALL going to stop those people – they fly in on a tourist visa and don’t go home. Any these are the immigrants that take the better paying jobs.

It is actually all about the DNC attempting to accrue enough power to become the only party that has a say in anything.

This is an ideological ‘rant’ not a rational argument.

Democrats really could care less about who is getting paid or not right now, they could care less about crime rates, murders and drugs. Pelosi last I read was in Puerto Rico fund raising while Trump has been sitting at the White House, ready to make a deal.

This is why illegal immigrants are more important to them right now than American citizens.

It is also why when almost a million Federal employees (American citizens) are not getting paid right now, the percentage of our 21 million or so illegal immigrants on welfare will keep getting paid.

They are, after all, more important.

And just who was it that refused to negotiate and walked out of the room like a two year old?

Democrats are more likely to use facts in decision making rather then “Because I want a win”

This wall c**p is a distraction from the Mueller investigation. #45 uses racial/economic hatred as a prod to keep his base from looking at his lies and crimes.

Be an ideolog, it is your right. But own it – don’t pass off apologetics as facts, reason, or good-will.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: Lumenari


Your OP is certainly plausible and I agree with it.

But, is your OP not about illegal aliens being allowed to vote in Texas so that they take that state over as well as Cali? Did I miss something there?

No and I will clarify in the OP.

The main thrust of the OP was that, through legislation on a state level that allows illegal immigrants to vote LEGALLY, Democrats can subvert the will of the citizens in the state by stacking the votes for the left.

Which is exactly what was done in California.

Yes, illegal voting ILLEGALLY does happen... to those that don't think so I offered a real world example that it does.

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Lumenari
Moderates, Conservatives and some Democrats have pointed out lately the hypocrisy of Nancy, Check and Co. If they were all for wall and border security less than a decade ago, why the complete opposition now?

I realize that this is the current talking point, but you do know that you're comparing apples to oranges... don't you?

Moderates, Conservatives, and some Democrats were all for sections of wall and fencing, less than a decade ago, in areas that it made fiscal and practical sense to build. That's a far cry from the Pacific-to-Gulf wall being suggested today. There are many areas along our southern border that the conditions and terrain make a wall unpractical and/or unnecessary, so starting or approving such a project would be a waste when other options like sensors, drones, or more border agents would be far more cost-efficient and effective.

And I have never heard anyone argue that, or that Trump's proposal has anything at all to do with completing an actual wall from point a to z.

There is a spot on the Laredo sector that sports a 200 foot high cliff, for instance.

No need to put a fence at the bottom of it, is there?

Which is not what is being offered for a solution.

However, that seems to be what the Democrats want to project it as, to make it look silly.

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: redmage


Moderates, Conservatives, and some Democrats were all for sections of wall and fencing, less than a decade ago, in areas that it made fiscal and practical sense to build. That's a far cry from the Pacific-to-Gulf wall being suggested today.

glad someone gets it

Before you jump onboard with that idea sweety, you may want to find a link somewhere that says a gulf-to-pacific wall is what is being proposed...

a reply to: Lumenari

Ok, so you don't understand what is being proposed, or that you're comparing apples to oranges.

Trump wants a wall across the southern border, not sections of wall in areas that it makes fiscal and practical sense (like what has been supported, passed, and built already). That's why, with a 2 year monopoly, rational republican lawmakers did not fund his pipe dream. They know that 5 billion is barely a down payment to break ground on his grand vision which will cost much MUCH more for years and years to come.

I agree, there's no reason to put a fence/wall at the bottom of that 200 foot high cliff near Laredo. There are many areas along our southern border that the conditions and terrain make a wall unpractical and/or unnecessary, but that is what Trump wants taxpayers to pay for, and what he's shut down government to get.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Since you seemed to have some time, I'll make a little for you. Not much though... debating a cat and all.

Where does it say, how do you know that ‘Moderates, Conservatives and ‘some’ Democrats were all for a wall a decade ago??

Because the Secure Fence Act passed in 2006 with major Democratic support. If you missed that little talking point the last few weeks, I don't know what to tell you.

Secure Fence Act 2006

You are saying above that Nancy Pelosi can only retain power (I assume you mean the Speakership) if she gives #45 nothing.

1) The democratic party votes for the Speakership because the Democratic Party is in the majority of seats in the House of Representatives - and while I, and you perhaps, would have prefered another Democratic in the Speakership - maintaining that 'powerful' position next to nothing to do with the 'WALL'.

2) You appear to take the 'orange man bad' meme and turn it into a 'pelosi woman bad' meme. Do you not see how that generic meme is stating an ideological bias in either case? It has nothing to do with factual reality.

So can you please state your case that Nancy Pelosi is good?

I mean, just for entertainment value. What has Nancy Pelosi done that has had a positive effect on America, her constituents, anything? I mean, besides her donors.

Please clarify your stated two point of view - and what about all the other points of view.

I already posted two simple points of view and then went on to my third. Keep up.

Now onto the California Bashing - which I assume is the point of this post. That we need a physical WALL between the US and Mexico.

I posted politically what California looked like from 1938 to present with charts. From the LA Times, no less.
If historical facts from a left-leaning source is "bashing", then perhaps you just have a problem with facts being presented. Not judging you.. the world takes all kinds.

Nice article tracing the ebb and flow of red vs blue in the state. Nothing on the wall or border security. Just an factual accounting of counties voting Republican or Democratic in any given presidential election year.

Thank you.... although if you think it through I didn't actually write the article. I was using it for a reference for people.

You also missed the quote I TOOK from the article to lead into my point. I will re-post it so you don't have to think too hard or lose track or refer to the OP.

California’s Latino and Asian populations boomed in the 1990s and the growing segment of voters were turned off by the Republican Party’s hard-line stance on immigration. After the party closely tied itself to Proposition 187, a controversial California ballot measure that denied public services to people in the country illegally, Republicans struggled to win back the state's immigrant population. Democratic candidates have won decisively in every election since 1992 by performing well in the most populous areas. Despite failing to win the presidency, Hillary Clinton won a higher percentage of votes than any candidate since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Bolding mine to help you.

As far as backing up the Goldwater campaign being torpedoed by the Democratic party, are you ph##king serious?

Let me see... the democratic party first started by calling him mentally unfit for office, then compared him to Hitler, then... Oh you know! Same thing they do today.

Here's a link to start you off on the path for that (waste of my time on you, I know, but other people will read this and be interested)

Goldwater Democratic Takedown

I am going to stop there.. the rest of your post is just silly rambling that really doesn't need to be addressed by me... other posters and reality can do the rest.

originally posted by: redmage
a reply to: Lumenari

Ok, so you don't understand what is being proposed, or that you're comparing apples to oranges.

Trump wants a wall across the southern border, not sections of wall in areas that it makes fiscal and practical sense (like what has been supported, passed, and built already). That's why, with a 2 year monopoly, rational republican lawmakers did not fund his pipe dream. They know that 5 billion is barely a down payment to break ground on his grand vision which will cost much MUCH more.

I agree, there's no reason to put a fence/wall at the bottom of that 200 foot high cliff near Laredo. There are many areas along our southern border that the conditions and terrain make a wall unpractical and/or unnecessary, but that is what Trump wants taxpayers to pay for, and what he's shut down government to get.

So please post to me this proposal of Trumps that calls for a Gulf-To-Pacific physical wall.

Because that would certainly change my mind on some things.

Not what I was referencing in my OP at all though... care to talk about that a little?

The 2020 Census results are going to be one big pain in the ass for the new Congressional Districts.

😁

originally posted by: Lumenari
So please post to me this proposal of Trumps that calls for a Gulf-To-Pacific physical wall.

His only proposal is that he wants "a wall across our southern border". In English, "a wall across our southern border" is singular, one wall, and our southern border stretches from the Pacific to the Gulf.

Similarly, his favorite call and response, "Who's going to build the wall?"... "MEXICO!" includes the singular, "the wall", and I'm sure you've heard at least one of his campaign rallies.

If he has a proposal for accepting sections of wall in areas that it makes fiscal and practical sense (like what has been supported, passed, and built with bi-partisan support in the past), then I'm sure Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike would LOVE to hear it so they can actually negotiate to re-open the gov., but until he comes up with a reasonable proposal... the singular "wall across our southern border" that he is asking for is absurd.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Not what I was referencing in my OP at all though... care to talk about that a little?

Well, the topic is, "Why Democrats don't want a wall.", and I went ahead and offered a little extra with why Democrats and Republicans (who have had 2 monopolistic years with no approval for it) don't want a wall since you appeared to not understand that you were comparing apples and oranges right from the start of your OP.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: soundguy
The vast majority of Americans don’t want the wall. Sorry if your delusional thinking interferes with reality. I’m pretty sure after they left your company they had to use industrial strength mind bleach to get the stupid out. a reply to: Lumenari

The majority of liberals don't.

Sorry sweety... liberals such as yourself actually comprise about 25% of our country.

You just sound like a lot more because of all the RREEEEEEEE.

As for the rest of your post, if you are going to be insulting at least be good doing it.

I found it infantile and boring... no zingers there, no real meat, as it were.

So just more RRRREEEEEEEE.

Back to the lab for you...

And this time at least attempt to address the OP.



And edited to add.... you posted 6 minutes after I made the OP.

So you never made it past the title... no way you could have had your care provider read it for you and then post a response in that time.

Actually, it isn’t just liberals that don’t want the wall. 56% of the population doesn’t want the wall to expand.
That’s a majority.
www.pewresearch.org...
Point #3 in the link, but the whole article is pertinent to the discussion.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: soundguy

You have a poll for your non-sense to cite?

Otherwise you better get some of that mind bleach to use on yourself.

Hells, the Dems helped approve 325 miles of fence in 2006...now all of a sudden dont want to fund 250? Yeah, OK.

Actually, we do. 56% of the population doesn’t want the wall to expand. Point #3 in this link:
www.pewresearch.org...