We could be done with illegal immigration today if we eliminated the welfare state.

From my perspective, I don’t know what proportion of illegal immigrants come here to work for $2/hr vs live off of welfare. I can reason that removing the welfare safety net, and making it legal to hire illegal immigrants, would raise the wages of those willing to work so they can be self reliant, and filter out those unwilling to work.

I think it’s extremely important to help those that can’t help themselves. The war on poverty programs however have proven to be detrimental. Whatever we had before the 60s- go back to that.

To give you the strongest version of your argument-say Republican poll watchers in concert continuously spit on dem watchers and vote counters, and were then kicked out. Should vote counting resume without Republican watchers?

The alternative would be to stop counting until new Republican watchers are present, as required

You pause until you find Republican watchers that don’t break the rules. Otherwise you’re breaking the rules.

There are several affidavits stating that votes were counted without Republican watchers present at 6 ft.

Doesn’t matter who’s at fault for breaking the procedure, you can’t consider the count legitimate if the procedure is not followed.

The fact that affidavits didn’t result in decertification does not mean that they are untrue

Proved to be true meaning ____?

What does it mean for an affidavit to be proven true?

Okay, so the affidavits are not useful and will not overturn certification. But your claim was that all watchers were present during the count, and the affidavit contradicting that were untrue because the judge said so. But in fact the judge only said they were not useful.

This dude’s appeal to everything other than facts and the other sides arguments is mind numbing.

“We have spent so much money on our election, therefore there is no fraud”

“Look at this letter someone wrote us for running such a good election”

Watching it yeah

The southern strategy doesn’t invalidate anything. Nobody wants to see black Americans become wealthy and escape poverty less than white liberals

I grew up in the south too. There is racism, sure, but white conservatives aren’t pushing policies that create single parent black households (greater predictor of poverty than not having a college degree)

A wealthy black man is not a democratic voter. It is not in white liberals interest for them to move vertically and their policies reflect that.

I don’t deny that the southern strategy happened... but isn’t really relevant in modern politics IMO

The race based policies all come from liberals now

I agree with that, just using liberalism in the context that Malcom x used it lol

Leftist policies are designed for black families to grow up in secular single parent households and go to college. What does this do? Makes them marginally wealthier, yes, but, it also allows the state and universities to impose their own values on them rather than their family’s values, created life long blue voters, and turns them into tax cattle that can be milked for decades

Via student debt

I think the devotion for trump is fueled by all of the illegal and unethical shit that the other side does to him. Speaking for myself. Like I don’t care how trump sounds on Twitter if he’s standing up to the people that illegally spy on him and utilize rioters to burn our cities down in order to hurt him politically.

Hearing members of a party yell about the silence of the other members of a party is off putting. You are the party, and you’re yelling.

Sterling telling about the gop being silent

He should be the thing he’s telling others to be

With due respect, yes threats of violence are wrong but the threat of a great deal of violence is also very realistic if Americans are given an election result they know to be fraudulent.

So I would say there’s bigger things at stake. Yes that one man should use his position to condemn violence, but also respect the bigger picture.

Is there a legal, constitutional process for challenging the results of an election? If so, is it being followed?

Should election fraud just be allowed?

So if the president knew there was a plan for fraud, he should’ve kept quiet?

If they broke their own rules, doesn’t the Supreme Court have the duty to bring justice?

Are you claiming to have all of the information the POTUS has at all times?

Or are you merely claiming that if there WAS a DNC plan for fraud, CNN would’ve been privy to it and reported it months ago.

I think people saying that either haven’t watched Robert’s analyses or aren’t intelligent enough to understand them.

So if trump knew about a plan for election fraud, should he have kept quiet about it leading up to the election? Yes or no.

What could a president do about a plan for election fraud, other than fight legal battles in the specific states it’s planned to prevent it from happening?

So wait... trump claims he knew about a plan for election fraud or not? You’re the one that said he claimed that for months leading up to the election.

Where in the constitution is the POTUS granted the power to personally oversee state elections?

Trump created an agency to handle elections?

CISA didn’t handle elections... the states did.

Oh you take the word of a government agency. Got it.

Not any one person. You have to listen to everyone involved and look at the facts objectively. Life isn’t as simple as “listen to the guy in the federal agency”. Apply that principle to any given tyrannical government and see what would’ve happened.

Listening to the guy in the federal agency is the comforting, not truthful, approach.

Explain to me why you would trust any one single individual in a government agency over hundreds of witness testimonies and mathematical analyses.

The bootlicking is hardcore.

Remember it is impossible to “prove” election fraud without having a hearing in court where both sides get to cross examine witnesses under oath. If you don’t allow the hearing, you can’t have the “proof”. That is the DNC strategy.

Already on the docket comrade.

There have been dozens of cases filed. If the democrats were interested in free, transparent elections, and “healing” the nation, they would allow republicans to collect forensic evidence and present their case in court. Simple, but they of course are scared.

Why would they fight having a free and transparent election process?

Allow the republicans the opportunity to present their case for election fraud. If there is no fraud, the outcome won’t change. Why is this hard to accept?

What about stories under oath?

Can you name one instance in which the republicans were granted a hearing in which both sides got to cross examine witnesses testifying to fraud under oath?

I presume, as an advocate for following the rules, you would throw out any mail in ballots that were unconditionally authorized then.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Are you cherry picking testimonies that had issues? Was this under oath?

I’m not sure if you can throw out a case because one of a dozen witnesses supposedly failed to use industry standards.

In who’s opinion were the experts unqualified?

I’d like to look up the case and see the ruling.

I’d like to look up the case and see if both sides were cross examined, and if the case was dismissed because the experts were unqualified and didn’t use industry standards, as you claim.

I see. So trump team was not afforded an opportunity to provide “proof”.

When the Fed buys equity shares, that is the state owning the means of production. There are quite a few people advocating that directly or indirectly.

I have yet to see a case dismissed by a federal judge because expert witnesses were deemed unqualified. Happy to see evidence I’m wrong.

...covid?

I’ll have to check it out. I did not watch the nv hearing.

Are you familiar with critical theory?

I’m not sure if this is a more academic explanation for critical theory, but I’m referring to the practical implementation of it, like equity based hiring so a business demographics meet the population’s demographics. As done in South Africa.

Regarding Chinese influence in politics: I don’t see how the green new deal, as presented in Biden’s platform, can be seen as anything other than yielding energy and manufacturing power to China.

Ah yes. Critical race theory being just one branch of critical theory. It permeates other institutions as well, like STEM.

I agree with that to an extent. I actually see critical race theory and the new lefts implementation of it as closer to a form of fascism than mere socialism. There is too much race theory intertwined with the merging of the state and corporate world .

Biden has green new dream in his platform

Yes. The idea of destroying the petrol industry in favor of state run green energy does 3 things:

1. Yields manufacturing and energy production to China, so that we become dependent on them for both
2. Destroys our environment (unintended consequences of wind and solar) and energy capacity (relying on coal backup, like Germany)
3. Nationalizes energy production

Hypothetical question for antitrumpers: if 1,000 witnesses testify to the same murder under oath, and the court rules against them, which side do you take?

It’s just a hypothetical. Is the court, in principle, always right and just?

In the issue of elections , what if they do show a pattern of consistent behavior across several states?

Is this confirmation bias?

How many before you convinced there’s fraud?

How will you know is valid?

Ah right, the courts are infallible.

I mean that’s a fair argument

I think it’s important to be conscious of how you structure your beliefs. If it really all came down to what the courts decide, that’s problematic.

If it really all JUST came down to witness testimony, that’s problematic as well. I’m sure Biden could find a few thousand people willing to lie under oath to oust trump.

Witness testimony of illegal process must coincide with mathematical and numerical data, and must coincide with testimony of process in other states to show a pattern

The kraken cases have proven, if nothing else, there is absolutely no reason to vote in the US.

Say all of the fraud was made up and every single of the hundreds of witnesses were lying. Just repeat it in 2024, plus fraud. Nothing to stop you.

It’s simple. Enforce the laws. That’s how you get republicans to have faith in elections. What is hard to understand about that?

Either we have laws and rules regarding elections or we don’t. That is what SCOTUS is determining now.

Either we are a constitutional republic or we have 50 individual monarchs

What was the evidence?

Problem is there is no constitutional article or amendment addressing health emergencies

That’s their right. They can do so if they want, constitutionally

General election is different

I will raise you one forever and say there is good contextual evidence that other countries (China, Iran, Russia) have successfully sewn the divisiveness we have now

The worst things for those countries would’ve been a US united under trump, ending policies that exploited the us.

There is nothing we can really call our own anymore though. The Soviets have subverted our universities since ww2 and the effects of that live on and magnify as time goes on. Being the #1 superpower decades ago also resulted in being the #1 target for subversion for the whole world.

Did the legislature pass new mail in voting laws? It is my understanding this was the executive

Before soviet subversion, Ivy League universities were horribly racist and right wing. Phrenology and race theory were taught at Harvard.

The ideas don’t have to live on with the people, they have to live on within the institutions

I’m not sure that does anything to combat the claim that other countries subvert us in order to divide us for their own benefit