US Presidential Contenders

[vonbach]

Illegal immigrants do not receive welfare to the extent you imply -- even when we think of welfare in very broad terms. In Texas, for example, illegal immigrants contribute more in labor value than they consume in services.

Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all. As far as building a wall its simple either a wall gets built and the illegals removed or the USA turns into South Africa.
 

"Import a permanent Democratic voting bloc?" Leaving aside the fact that illegal immigrants can't vote (and no, voter fraud isn't a major aspect of elections in the U.S. today), ."

Yes they do vote. Everyone knows this. As for vote fraud of course there is vote fraud. Just look at Ron Paul.
The Democrats steal votes its how they get elected.

[Buster's Uncle]

[Lorizael]

I've never figured out how to make headway with individuals who seem repulsed by the mere idea that there are opinions different from their own. I gave up trying a long time go. Nowadays it just makes me sad.

[Unorthodox]

Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all.

Having spent a good 20 years of my life working alongside illegals, both at jobs that didn't require proof of legality, and at jobs that DID (thus some illicit activity was required for them to work there at all), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here.  Granted, my experience is anecdotal, but if half the people in the country legally had the same work ethic, there would be a lot less need for welfare.

That said, those were jobs that, THEORETICALLY, a legal citizen COULD have been doing.  Seen a lot of legal citizens quit those jobs... 

As far as building a wall its simple either a wall gets built and the illegals removed or the USA turns into South Africa.

Considering a good portion of the folks I worked with (~30%) actually came in off a boat on the left border, and a fair few out of the NORTH, I find the narrow "build a wall around Mexico" naive at best. 
 

Yes they do vote. Everyone knows this.

Again, anecdotally, my experience does not support this view.  They avoid any chance at getting caught, and at least here, you have to check your id to vote. 

[Yitzi]

Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all.

Having spent a good 20 years of my life working alongside illegals, both at jobs that didn't require proof of legality, and at jobs that DID (thus some illicit activity was required for them to work there at all), I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here.  Granted, my experience is anecdotal, but if half the people in the country legally had the same work ethic, there would be a lot less need for welfare.

No, there'd probably be more need for welfare, since there aren't enough jobs to cover everybody working with such a high work ethic (and while the number of jobs isn't fixed, it changes slower than whatever's causing a change to it, so it'd come out to a net loss).

[Dio]

The discharge of sweeping generalizations and sterotypes almost never accurately reflects the reality of an issue.

[Rusty Edge]

The Democrats steal votes its how they get elected.

Well, I have said before that democrats steal some votes, but that's not how they get elected. They get elected because they are a majority. More people register with them and identify with them. It's the legacy of FDR and LBJ, ( old people vote ) and the efforts to be all-inclusive.

The vote stealing/fraud happens in places with one party rule- cities like Philadelphia, Chicago and Milwaukee. Where the voters, officials and watchdogs are all on the same side. There somebody can get over-zealous and somebody can look the other way, and the obvious winner can win by a negligibly wider margin.

Why negligibly? Because political science being what it is, any significant anomaly will be noticed, and protested/investigated. When you read the reports, they say the mischief was minimal or didn't materially affect the outcome. Wisconsin has photo ID laws now, so it's way harder to cheat. Pennsylvania adopted some photo ID laws, but I think they got struck down by the courts.

Sometimes I think the talk of  the Democrats cheating is just a way of motivating Republican voter turnout, because turnout is how Republicans win elections.

You can believe as much as the above as you care to. I'm not going to document anything. I started working in the Republican party as soon as I turned 18 and registered. I worked on the Perot campaign the first time, too.  I worked on the Walker recall petition verification.



 

[vonbach]

They get elected because they are a majority.

Lol. No they are not. the get elected because of he archaic gerrymandered electoral college system
that puts all the power in the cities and minority bloc votes. In other words welfare for votes. Outside of blue counties, mostly the big cities the entire country is Republican. Democracy works until people figure out that you can vote yourself money from the public funds. Its why were supposed to have a Republic.

Wisconsin has photo ID laws now, so it's way harder to cheat. Pennsylvania adopted some photo ID laws, but I think they got struck down by the courts.

Yes because if people actually had to show ID at polling places the Democrats would never win another election.

[Buster's Uncle]

[Trenacker]

Of course Illegals get welfare. Thats why they come here. Illegals contribute nothing they are a massive drain on the system thats all. As far as building a wall its simple either a wall gets built and the illegals removed or the USA turns into South Africa.

No, they “come here” because of a lack of economic opportunity or personal security in their countries of origin.

According to a February 12, 2013 New York Times article by Adam Davidson titled, “Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?” illegal immigrants actually benefit the overall economy even though they impose various non-economic costs and have a negative economic impact on specific communities: “There are many ways to debate immigration, but when it comes to economics, there isn’t much of a debate at all. Nearly all economists, of all political persuasions, agree that immigrants — those here legally or not — benefit the overall economy.” In fact, the article explains that the benefit is quite significant.

Davidson further reports that while undocumented workers do draw about $1 billion per year from the Social Security Trust Fund, they contribute $15 billion in payroll taxes.

A CNN Money article by Maria Santana, “5 immigration myths debunked,” indicates that more than half of illegal immigrants actually do file and pay income tax and “contribute more in payroll taxes than they will ever consume in public benefits,” for which very few of them actually qualify.

Yes they do vote. Everyone knows this. As for vote fraud of course there is vote fraud. Just look at Ron Paul.
The Democrats steal votes its how they get elected.

I did a quick search online and came up with a Washington Post article from October 24, 2014 titled, “Could non-citizens decide the November election?” They credit their findings to a forthcoming article in the journal, “Electoral Studies.” I found that I was incorrect. Voter fraud is, in fact, a potentially major aspect of elections in the U.S. today.

I was surprised to learn that about 6.4% of non-citizens reported voting in presidential elections, while 2.2% reported voted in off-year elections. As a result of analyzing voting patterns (Democrats capture 80% of votes by non-citizens),  they concluded that, “[T]his participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.”

In terms of whether or not Democrats always steal votes to get elected, no, there is no evidence of that of which I am aware. Again, you’d do better to ask why non-citizens who do vote choose to vote with the Democratic Party when, as I previously mentioned, they will not qualify for public benefits. (And it is much harder to get welfare than it is to vote.)

Vonbach, you continually describe people who vote Democratic or come from inner cities as “wanting things.” You say they have discovered that they can “vote themselves money.” Did it ever occur to you that for every paycheck in which you are forced to spend money on safety nets, you spend far more on “corporate welfare” – that is, subsidies to businesses? Has it also occurred to you that if you continually demonize people in inner cities as “takers,” they will never even begin to flirt with the idea of voting for you?

[Rusty Edge]

They get elected because they are a majority.

Lol. No they are not. the get elected because of he archaic gerrymandered electoral college system
that puts all the power in the cities and minority bloc votes. In other words welfare for votes. Outside of blue counties, mostly the big cities the entire country is Republican. Democracy works until people figure out that you can vote yourself money from the public funds. Its why were supposed to have a Republic.

Wisconsin has photo ID laws now, so it's way harder to cheat. Pennsylvania adopted some photo ID laws, but I think they got struck down by the courts.

Yes because if people actually had to show ID at polling places the Democrats would never win another election.

I stand corrected. Democrats have a plurality rather than a majority, but that's effectively the same. Self described independents don't have well funded organizations to get themselves to the polls. They stay home. They make protest votes. They cancel each other out.

According to Pew Research - Nationally 32% self-identify with the Democrats and 23% with the Republicans... more favorable for the GOP than when I got active, but still a 3 to 2 ratio. In a national election were an 11 to 9 popular vote ratio is considered a landslide, that's significant. That suggests that Democrats should have a 2/3ds majority in the House.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

*Gerrymandering favors the party in control of the state legislature in the year they make a redistricting plan. It can go either way, but only affects seats in the House of Representatives and state legislatures.

*The electoral college system was a compromise reached to gain the support for the Constitution from small states like Rhode Island, and rural states, so that populous states like Pennsylvania and Virginia wouldn't have all of the power. It is archaic, but it only affects presidential elections, and it gives the appearance of a mandate to the president.

As for the photo driver's licenses at polling places- I predict Wisconsin, where I now live and have lived for over 10 years, will remain competitive.  I'll try to keep everyone posted about the major elections here, so we'll know if Democrats can win an honest election.

Buncle, please hold me to this.



vonbach, please explain to me why if as you suggest that the country is predominately Republican, and the party's base is conservative, that you can't name a single conservative you'd like to see as president.

[Unorthodox]

They get elected because they are a majority.

Lol. No they are not. the get elected because of he archaic gerrymandered electoral college system
that puts all the power in the cities and minority bloc votes.

That's funny.  The state republicans here gerrymandered the state districts last cycle to break up the district that was going democrat. 

[Dio]

What is new about politicians protecting the voter composition in a specific district? I hear this particular issue arises after almost every census in the last thirty or more years.

[Rusty Edge]

What is new about politicians protecting the voter composition in a specific district? I hear this particular issue arises after almost every census in the last thirty or more years.

I just checked. The term was coined in 1812.

[Trenacker]

I think much more important is the sense that the other party is full of greedy, evil bloodsuckers.

An enlightening paragraph from "The Coddling of the American Mind," a recent article in The Atlantic, a liberal news magazine:

These same children grew up in a culture that was (and still is) becoming more politically polarized. Republicans and Democrats have never particularly liked each other, but survey data going back to the 1970s show that on average, their mutual dislike used to be surprisingly mild. Negative feelings have grown steadily stronger, however, particularly since the early 2000s. Political scientists call this process “affective partisan polarization,” and it is a very serious problem for any democracy. As each side increasingly demonizes the other, compromise becomes more difficult. A recent study shows that implicit or unconscious biases are now at least as strong across political parties as they are across races.

They point out that strong partisanship often blurs into self-righteousness. Combined with a news media that plays on fear to attract listeners and the "echo chamber" and "avalanche" effects of social media, you get a mutual hostility and crusading zeal that results in resistance to compromise. How do we break bread or split hairs with a monster?

It doesn't help that many Americans never learn how to critically evaluate their source material, meaning that they easily fall prey to spin doctors who have the imprimatur of legitimate social scientists. Hence you get people spinning elaborate theories about, say, the President's true intentions, based on what amounts to armchair psychology but reads like deep analysis.

Social media also disposes us to focus on sound and fury. Look at how many Americans agonize over the perception that Obama is unpatriotic, or those who insist that [Sleezebag] is offering credible leadership when really he is writing verbal checks that he can't possibly cash.