Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Filthy Fernadez

Lawsuit alleged 100,000 non-citizens registered to vote in Pennsylvania.

Recommended Posts

I dont think this is true, but the Dems completely lack any coherent immigration policy other than whining about detention.

 

I generally support making legal immigration easier and some form of amnesty for illegals who have been here productively working with no criminal record. The other half of it is hammering employers of illegals and closing down loopholes that allow businesses to unnecessarily bring in workers on visas. I also would support tariffs on US businesses that offshore jobs although I dont hear much about that now that the election is over.

 

How hard is it to adopt this platform? Both sides are nuts on this issue.

I could have this policy discussion. :cheers:

 

I don't agree with your initial statement tho, I think that adding illegals to the voting list is a goal of the dem party. I think so because I can't think of another rational reason to support open borders. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think this is true, but the Dems completely lack any coherent immigration policy other than whining about detention.

 

I generally support making legal immigration easier and some form of amnesty for illegals who have been here productively working with no criminal record. The other half of it is hammering employers of illegals and closing down loopholes that allow businesses to unnecessarily bring in workers on visas. I also would support tariffs on US businesses that offshore jobs although I dont hear much about that now that the election is over.

 

How hard is it to adopt this platform? Both sides are nuts on this issue.

Republicans have always loved illegals for the cheap labor. They may talk a tough game but never take any action. Typical politician.

 

Dems never cared about illegals until they became a way to score votes. Either directly through illegals voting, or indirectly by painting anyone opposed to illegals as racist. Muh racism is a pillar of the Dem platform.

 

Funny how Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and Obama all campaigned on/gave speeches that are word for word what Trump ran on. The videos have been posted several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon man, you are better than this.

I think its bullsh!t that a tiny fraction of voters in a few swing states decide the president every time (lets not even get into the primary system, where Iowa and New Hampshire rule for some reason.) most of us are in a state locked into one side of the other. Due to winner take all rules, our votes mean nothing.

 

We should at least portion electoral votes by percentage like a couple of states do. If a republican gets 35% of the vote in Cali, he should get 35% of the electors.

 

Its also bullshit that empty hellholes like North Dakota have the same senate power as California or Texas. One senator represents millions more people than the other. Why should their votes count the same?

 

If you look at it without party affiliation, you know Im right. If you were drawing up a sustem for a country and had no preconceived notions of the electorate, you wouldnt do it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S.A. The most successful, prosperous nation on earth. Let's change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who are most of the non-citizens? Like, do they lean democrat or republican?

 

 

The liberals claim that most of the mexican border jumpers (that end up able to vote), minorities and illegals end up voting Republican.

That's why the Republican's want as many people from Mexico to swarm over the border, so that the Republicans can get their votes.

That's why the Democrats are trying to stop the Mexicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S.A. The most successful, prosperous nation on earth. Let's change it.

Yeah. Im sure Rome, the British Empire, and a dozen others said much the same.

 

Evolve or die. Law of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Im sure Rome, the British Empire, and a dozen others said much the same.

 

Evolve or die. Law of the universe.

Inviting the barbarians in is evolving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are always the dumbest claims. I've explained this a few times already. A lot of states don't Purge their roles when people die for example.

 

So then morons like Trump supporters come screaming in about all these people who are registered to vote illegally!

 

Uh no junior, when they start VOTING en masse, come see me.

 

Fock, I'm still registered in Texas. Who cares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I dont support dissolving ice or any of that nonsense.

 

Waters down your drink

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who are most of the non-citizens? Like, do they lean democrat or republican?

 

 

The liberals claim that most of the mexican border jumpers (that end up able to vote), minorities and illegals end up voting Republican.

That's why the Republican's want as many people from Mexico to swarm over the border, so that the Republicans can get their votes.

 

That's why the Democrats are trying to stop the Mexicans.

Don't want to burst anybody's ignorance, but anything that even remotely hints at needing sums form of ID? Mexicans run the hell away from especially if they're illegal.

 

Not to mention they have jobs. And their supervisors aren't the kind to let them much rest encourage them to take the afternoon off to go vote.

 

Common sense people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have this policy discussion. :cheers:

 

I don't agree with your initial statement tho, I think that adding illegals to the voting list is a goal of the dem party. I think so because I can't think of another rational reason to support open borders. :dunno:

I think the Dems are sucking up to legal citizen Latino voters. I dont think theyre actually driving illegals to the polls. I also dont think the GOP is serious about immigration reform either.

 

The immigration debate seems to be driven by the extremes in either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Immigrants I mean...legal immigrants.

If they are legal then I dont see why not. They are talking about illegals though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its bullsh!t that a tiny fraction of voters in a few swing states decide the president every time (lets not even get into the primary system, where Iowa and New Hampshire rule for some reason.) most of us are in a state locked into one side of the other. Due to winner take all rules, our votes mean nothing.

 

We should at least portion electoral votes by percentage like a couple of states do. If a republican gets 35% of the vote in Cali, he should get 35% of the electors.

 

Its also bullshit that empty hellholes like North Dakota have the same senate power as California or Texas. One senator represents millions more people than the other. Why should their votes count the same?

 

If you look at it without party affiliation, you know Im right. If you were drawing up a sustem for a country and had no preconceived notions of the electorate, you wouldnt do it this way.

 

The problem with a popular vote is that all of the focus would shift to the major urban centers, and a large section of the country would be ignored. That being said I could entertain some changes to the electoral system, perhaps instead of winner take all you do it by district or county or individual electoral vote. I'd need to think it through. :thumbsup:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with a popular vote is that all of the focus would shift to the major urban centers, and a large section of the country would be ignored. That being said I could entertain some changes to the electoral system, perhaps instead of winner take all you do it by district or county or individual electoral vote. I'd need to think it through. :thumbsup:

That would be nice. Maybe then my vote wouldn't be overriden by the loons in New York City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with a popular vote is that all of the focus would shift to the major urban centers, and a large section of the country would be ignored. That being said I could entertain some changes to the electoral system, perhaps instead of winner take all you do it by district or county or individual electoral vote. I'd need to think it through. :thumbsup:

Hunger Games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its bullsh!t that a tiny fraction of voters in a few swing states decide the president every time (lets not even get into the primary system, where Iowa and New Hampshire rule for some reason.) most of us are in a state locked into one side of the other. Due to winner take all rules, our votes mean nothing.

 

We should at least portion electoral votes by percentage like a couple of states do. If a republican gets 35% of the vote in Cali, he should get 35% of the electors.

 

Its also bullshit that empty hellholes like North Dakota have the same senate power as California or Texas. One senator represents millions more people than the other. Why should their votes count the same?

 

If you look at it without party affiliation, you know Im right. If you were drawing up a sustem for a country and had no preconceived notions of the electorate, you wouldnt do it this way.

 

Getting rid of the electoral is devolving not evolving. There is a reason we don't do a popular vote do some research.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its bullsh!t that a tiny fraction of voters in a few swing states decide the president every time (lets not even get into the primary system, where Iowa and New Hampshire rule for some reason.) most of us are in a state locked into one side of the other. Due to winner take all rules, our votes mean nothing.

 

We should at least portion electoral votes by percentage like a couple of states do. If a republican gets 35% of the vote in Cali, he should get 35% of the electors.

 

Its also bullshit that empty hellholes like North Dakota have the same senate power as California or Texas. One senator represents millions more people than the other. Why should their votes count the same?

 

If you look at it without party affiliation, you know Im right. If you were drawing up a sustem for a country and had no preconceived notions of the electorate, you wouldnt do it this way.

 

 

Cities where people are living on top of each other, shooting each other because they are all packed in 30 to an apartment, having gang wars, etc shouldn't get the same voting power as the cities/states where that type of animalistic behavior and living conditions don't exist.

 

There. We've both voiced our opinion.

 

Guess what, none of it matters though. The process is what it is. Wishing or stomping our feet or pleading to others on FFToday won't change it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It woke take an amendment to the constitution. 2/3 of the states. Never happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its bullsh!t that a tiny fraction of voters in a few swing states decide the president every time (lets not even get into the primary system, where Iowa and New Hampshire rule for some reason.) most of us are in a state locked into one side of the other. Due to winner take all rules, our votes mean nothing.

 

We should at least portion electoral votes by percentage like a couple of states do. If a republican gets 35% of the vote in Cali, he should get 35% of the electors.

 

Its also bullshit that empty hellholes like North Dakota have the same senate power as California or Texas. One senator represents millions more people than the other. Why should their votes count the same?

 

If you look at it without party affiliation, you know Im right. If you were drawing up a sustem for a country and had no preconceived notions of the electorate, you wouldnt do it this way.

 

Seems to me that's exactly what happened in the creation of our country. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with a popular vote is that all of the focus would shift to the major urban centers, and a large section of the country would be ignored. That being said I could entertain some changes to the electoral system, perhaps instead of winner take all you do it by district or county or individual electoral vote. I'd need to think it through. :thumbsup:

The only feasible change would be the winner of a states popular vote automatically gets the 2 Senate electoral votes. The House of Rep electoral votes get awarded (1 each) by popular vote just for the towns/cities/counties they represent.

 

There might be a better way to explain it but that's the best I can do with my limited I.Q.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only feasible change would be the winner of a states popular vote automatically gets the 2 Senate electoral votes. The House of Rep electoral votes get awarded (1 each) by popular vote just for the towns/cities/counties they represent.

 

There might be a better way to explain it but that's the best I can do with my limited I.Q.

The easy way would be to just split by percentage.

 

If a state has ten ec votes, and the result is 60-40, one candidate gets six, the other gets four.

 

This would put a lot more of the country in play. Republicans would get votes out of places like Orange County. Democrats from places like Austin and Nashville. More peoples votes would matter and the result would more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easy way would be to just split by percentage.

Yup that would certainly be the easy way.

 

The way I suggested (and I realize it won't ever happen) would blow the minds of 75% of the voters in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easy way would be to just split by percentage.

 

If a state has ten ec votes, and the result is 60-40, one candidate gets six, the other gets four.

 

This would put a lot more of the country in play. Republicans would get votes out of places like Orange County. Democrats from places like Austin and Nashville. More peoples votes would matter and the result would more accurately reflect the will of the people.

 

How would what you just proposed differ from a straight up popular vote?

 

---

 

What if they did something like:

 

Counties with

0 - 499,999 in population get 1 point

500,000 - 999,999 in population 2 points

1,000,000+ in population get 3 points

 

or something similar to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question, does the number of electoral votes map directly to congressional districts? If so I'm intrigued by the prospect of electing via districts vs. states. I'm in a weird district which includes ASU so it is pretty purple; I'd be more inclined to get involved if I felt like I could significantly impact the outcome. Otherwise I know I'm in a red state and who cares if I vote, until enough California dummies move here and turn us blue... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they pay local taxes...should they have a voice in representation?

Swear I want to punch you right in the face you focking prideless son of a .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swear I want to punch you right in the face you focking prideless son of a ######.

I don't recall ever reading such an inflammatory post like Sho's there. It offers a glimpse into the left's mentality though. They NEED those illegals voting. Why else would they be SO against voter I.D.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall ever reading such an inflammatory post like Sho's there. It offers a glimpse into the left's mentality though. They NEED those illegals voting. Why else would they be SO against voter I.D.?

People like Shonuff have led a pampered, soft life provided by others. They have no skin in the game and most likely have a guilty conscience about it. This country just doesn't mean as much to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall ever reading such an inflammatory post like Sho's there. It offers a glimpse into the left's mentality though. They NEED those illegals voting. Why else would they be SO against voter I.D.?

According to the Racist formerly known as SloTard minorities are not capable of getting an ID, so it hurts them more than White people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you just pay "local" taxes? Every paycheck I ever got had federal, state and city taken out, along with fica. Is there some special pay system where you only pay the "local" taxes? Unless you're just talking about sales tax, and if you are , you're a fockin moron.

Florida doesn't take out State or City taxes. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida doesn't take out State or City taxes. :dunno:

Florida doesn't have a state tax. What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida doesn't have a state tax. What's your point?

Exactly. You said every check you've ever gotten had state tax taken out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. You said every check you've ever gotten had state tax taken out.

Innever got a check in Florida. Are you retarded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swear I want to punch you right in the face you focking prideless son of a ######.

How dare I believe in representation that comes along with taxation.

Where did I get a crazy idea like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swear I want to punch you right in the face you focking prideless son of a ######.

If that's honestly true...if you really meant that....get off here. Stop debating politics. If you sincerely want to resort to violence because someone doesn't agree with you. Then you need help. And not in the moronic posts the Trumpettes post. I mean seriously. That's absolutely not cool and you should legitimately step back and ask if that kind of feeling is warranted.

 

Not cool. Not even a little bit. It's this kind of crap that gets people so blindly mad they forget everything about morality and being good to others.

 

Off the soap box but that is some seriously messed up stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's honestly true...if you really meant that....get off here. Stop debating politics. If you sincerely want to resort to violence because someone doesn't agree with you. Then you need help. And not in the moronic posts the Trumpettes post. I mean seriously. That's absolutely not cool and you should legitimately step back and ask if that kind of feeling is warranted.

Not cool. Not even a little bit. It's this kind of crap that gets people so blindly mad they forget everything about morality and being good to others.

Off the soap box but that is some seriously messed up stuff.

You too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More stupid Lefty Logic:

 

Anyone who visits the USA and pays sales tax should be able to vote in our elections?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×