Alabama indites Rethuglicans, Whut?

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Well, George Wallace was never a senator and thus didn't get a vote on the civil rights legislation. (Not to mention he later renounced his earlier racism and, like Byrd, spent the last few decades of his life apologizing for it. Or that although Hillary Clinton did later call Byrd her mentor, in the mid '60s she was a Goldwater Republican.)"

Are trying to imply that Alabama Governor George Wallace would have voted FOR LBJ's civil rights bills had he been a U.S. Senator? Also, why is it okay for Democrats like Robert Byrd to be virulently racist (e.g. even rising to high rank in the Klan), just so long as they apologize later on down the road?

"But Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and Phil Gramm just to name a few who later became senators - and Strom Thurmond, who already was a senator by then - they were all Democrats-turned-Republicans..."

Strom Thurmond was the ONLY segregationist southern Democrat to switch parties after LBJ's civil rights bills became law. ALL of the other segregationists in the House & Senate remained staunch Democrats! As for Jesse Helms & Trent Lott - they didn't even go to Washington until 1973, while Democrat Phil Gramm was elected to the House as a Democrat in 1978, switching parties in '83! NONE of those three were ever elected as segregationist Democrats!

"...not joining the Klan doesn't mean you're not a racist."

This is true. Bill & Hillary Clinton and Al Gore never joined the KKK, but all three has segregationist, racist mentors. They all just hid their true feelings better than others.

(on Ilhan Omar): "And I wouldn't count on her sinking the Dems' House majority. The Republicans are already maxed out on the Islamophobe vote, and it wasn't enough last year."

She wasn't elected to the House until 2018. Nancy Pelosi at first LOVED the idea that her party was open & diverse enough to elect two Islamic women to the U.S. House, but not anymore.

"Hillary Clinton may be roundly admired by feminists and Democratic partisans, but she also had 25 years of baggage to carry and was uniquely reviled by people..."

It was either Hillary or Bernie Sanders for the Democrats in 2016, and the people behind the scenes rigged it for Mrs. Clinton because they were afraid that Bernie would get them landslided. President Obama said that Hillary was the "best prepared candidate in history to be president, even better than myself!" And Barack & Michelle campaigned for her extensively, with him telling black voters not to let him down (they let him down!)

"Time was, the Democrats couldn't wait to run against Ronald Reagan..."

Ronald Reagan badly landslided President Carter in 1980, and then landslided Vice President Mondale EVEN WORSE. Unlike Barack Obama, incumbent Republican presidents tend to do much better the second time around!

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Well, George Wallace was never a senator and thus didn't get a vote on the civil rights legislation. (Not to mention he later renounced his earlier racism and, like Byrd, spent the last few decades of his life apologizing for it. Or that although Hillary Clinton did later call Byrd her mentor, in the mid '60s she was a Goldwater Republican.)"

Are trying to imply that Alabama Governor George Wallace would have voted FOR LBJ's civil rights bills had he been a U.S. Senator?

You know perfectly well I said nothing of the sort.

Also, why is it okay for Democrats like Robert Byrd to be virulently racist (e.g. even rising to high rank in the Klan), just so long as they apologize later on down the road?

People can see the error of their ways and atone for the wrong they've done. You've repeatedly referred to America as "a Christian nation," you ought to know that. Also, that's not the same as saying it's "okay to be virulently racist", which it certainly is not.

"But Jesse Helms, Trent Lott and Phil Gramm just to name a few who later became senators - and Strom Thurmond, who already was a senator by then - they were all Democrats-turned-Republicans..."

Strom Thurmond was the ONLY segregationist southern Democrat to switch parties after LBJ's civil rights bills became law. ALL of the other segregationists in the House & Senate remained staunch Democrats! As for Jesse Helms & Trent Lott - they didn't even go to Washington until 1973, while Democrat Phil Gramm was elected to the House as a Democrat in 1978, switching parties in '83! NONE of those three were ever elected as segregationist Democrats!

I didn't say they were. The point is, they were Democrats who switched parties before they were elected (except for Gramm). Lott, for example, worked for one of the segregationist Democrats you alluded to. When his boss retired in 1972 and Lott decided to run, he ran as a Republican. Why? Because that's the party the segregationists were supporting by then.

"...not joining the Klan doesn't mean you're not a racist."

This is true. Bill & Hillary Clinton and Al Gore never joined the KKK, but all three has segregationist, racist mentors. They all just hid their true feelings better than others.

And all three have excellent records on civil rights, something hardly any Republican elected in the past 20 years can claim.

(on Ilhan Omar): "And I wouldn't count on her sinking the Dems' House majority. The Republicans are already maxed out on the Islamophobe vote, and it wasn't enough last year."

She wasn't elected to the House until 2018. Nancy Pelosi at first LOVED the idea that her party was open & diverse enough to elect two Islamic women to the U.S. House, but not anymore.

You know nothing about what Nancy Pelosi likes. Anyone who has read your posts can see you get your "news" only from right wing propaganda sources - I don't know which ones exactly, but that doesn't matter. What you hear about Pelosi - or Omar for that matter - quite probably doesn't even have a scintilla of factual accuracy to it.

"Hillary Clinton may be roundly admired by feminists and Democratic partisans, but she also had 25 years of baggage to carry and was uniquely reviled by people..."

It was either Hillary or Bernie Sanders for the Democrats in 2016, and the people behind the scenes rigged it for Mrs. Clinton because they were afraid that Bernie would get them landslided.

That accusation has been made, yes. But the record shows she won the nomination fair and square - just as she lost it fair and square in 2008. If she were going to have the establishment rig it for her, why not do that the first time she ran?

President Obama said that Hillary was the "best prepared candidate in history to be president, even better than myself!"

Which was absolutely true, no matter what you think of her politics.

And Barack & Michelle campaigned for her extensively, with him telling black voters not to let him down (they let him down!)

On that we can agree.

"Time was, the Democrats couldn't wait to run against Ronald Reagan..."

Ronald Reagan badly landslided President Carter in 1980, and then landslided Vice President Mondale EVEN WORSE. Unlike Barack Obama, incumbent Republican presidents tend to do much better the second time around!

Oh, I know. I mean, just look at how much better Bush Sr did the second time around!

By the way...
https://www.theroot.com/republicanssowhite-why-black-voters-dont-mess-with-th-1834062182

 

[dan_c00000]

and Strom Thurmond, who already was a senator by then - they were all Democrats-turned-Republicans who made the switch because that was where the pro-segregationist voters went in the decade or so after the Civil Rights Act.

The right always says stuff like the Democrats were the real racists. Yeah, here's the thing, Thurmond switched parties in 1964. In fact, the Times in its article on the switch notes that "His support of Mr. Goldwater will mark the fifth straight time since he came to national political prominence that he has not campaigned for the Democratic Presidential nominee."

In other words segregationist like Thurmond knew that the Democrats were becoming the pro-minority party. How did he know this? In 1948 Truman issued an executive order integrating the Army and Thurmond opposed that in, again, 1948!

So when dump says shit like the Democrats are the real racists he's either massively uniformed, a racist himself, is purposefully being stupid, or (and this is most likely) all of above.

 

[KeithD]

So when dump says shit like the Democrats are the real racists he's either massively uniformed, a racist himself, is purposefully being stupid, or (and this is most likely) all of above.

All of the above. I put Dump on ignore a long time ago.

 

[dan_c00000]

All of the above. I put Dump on ignore a long time ago.

Yup, he's an asshole alright. I'd put people like him, bot, dawn etc. on ignore but they're just too much fun to destroy. It's great you can see them desperate clinging to their racist worldview so bitterly it's fantastic.

Like when they watch Eddie Glaude on TV you know it makes their blood boil.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "When his boss retired in 1972 and Lott decided to run, he ran as a Republican. Why? Because that's the party the segregationists were supporting by then."

Trent Lott was NEVER a segregationist. It's entirely possible that you're confusing him with Al Gore's segregationist dad.

"And all three have excellent records on civil rights, something hardly any Republican elected in the past 20 years can claim."

President Obama put more black Americans on food stamps than anybody else in our nation's history, while President Trump has lowered the black unemployment rate to its lowest point EVER! Which of those do YOU feel is a more positive achievement in the field of civil rights?

"What you hear about Pelosi - or Omar for that matter - quite probably doesn't even have a scintilla of factual accuracy to it."

I just know that Rep. Omar is openly anti-Semitic while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is afraid to do anything about it.

"Oh, I know. I mean, just look at how much better Bush Sr did the second time around!"

Bush-Senior is one of only three U.S. presidents over the past half-century to run for re-election and win FEWER popular votes the second time around. The other two are Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Both Bush Sr. & Jimmy had third-party candidates siphoning-off support, and they both lost their re-election bids!

Barack Obama had NO third-party challenger to contend with, but he STILL managed to finish with over three-&-a-half-million FEWER popular votes in 2012 than he received in 2008, this despite the U.S. population expanding by approximately 8-million new people during that time period!

KeithD writes: "I put Dump on ignore a long time ago."

Yes, Keith, and I'm fine with that. You've really got nothing to add to the discussion, anyway.

dan_c00000 writes: "It's great you can see them desperate clinging to their racist worldview so bitterly it's fantastic."

It's called "Islam," Dan - and the Democratic Party are already electing Muslims to our U.S. House of Representatives, despite their anti-Semitic, racist worldview. It's all just so bitterly fantastic!

 

[YDB95]

The right always says stuff like the Democrats were the real racists. Yeah, here's the thing, Thurmond switched parties in 1964. In fact, the Times in its article on the switch notes that "His support of Mr. Goldwater will mark the fifth straight time since he came to national political prominence that he has not campaigned for the Democratic Presidential nominee."

In other words segregationist like Thurmond knew that the Democrats were becoming the pro-minority party. How did he know this? In 1948 Truman issued an executive order integrating the Army and Thurmond opposed that in, again, 1948!

So when dump says shit like the Democrats are the real racists he's either massively uniformed, a racist himself, is purposefully being stupid, or (and this is most likely) all of above.

Indeed. The thing is, he's probably heard it explained a dozen times or more on Fox News how Thurmond was actually protesting the Democrats' racism when he switched parties. No joke, they've been known to claim that!

YDB95 writes: "When his boss retired in 1972 and Lott decided to run, he ran as a Republican. Why? Because that's the party the segregationists were supporting by then."

Trent Lott was NEVER a segregationist. It's entirely possible that you're confusing him with Al Gore's segregationist dad.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Al Gore Sr who said - in 2003, nearly 40 years after the Civil Rights Acts - that he was proud his state had supported Thurmond in 1948. Or who was one of only five senators to vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Helms was another). Or who openly admitted in his autobiography that he had opposed integration at Ole Miss while he was a student there in the early '60s (he claimed that his only objection was to the federal government taking charge of matters that were none of their business - as if we wouldn't STILL be waiting for Ole Miss to integrate if we'd left it up to the states). Or who had a solid 30+ year career of racist votes, comments and affiliations including the Council of Conservative Citizens (which is essentially the Klan without the white sheets).

Gore Sr, like everyone who voted against the civil rights acts, deserves the ugly mark on his record for doing so. But he left office in 1971, and certainly can't be held accountable in any way for the fact that over two decades later, the Republicans elected a Senate leader whose record on civil rights was at least as bad as his.

"And all three have excellent records on civil rights, something hardly any Republican elected in the past 20 years can claim."

President Obama put more black Americans on food stamps than anybody else in our nation's history, while President Trump has lowered the black unemployment rate to its lowest point EVER! Which of those do YOU feel is a more positive achievement in the field of civil rights?

First of all, both those statistics are in dispute at best. Secondly, putting people on food stamps isn't necessarily a bad thing: when Obama took office, a LOT of people were out of work thanks to eight years of selfish Republican economic policy and the resulting financial disaster. Would you rather they starved to death before they could find a new job? And the increase applied to white people too. Secondly, the unemployment rate applies only to people who are looking for work. if you lose your job and spend four or five years looking for a new one with no success and finally give up, technically you no longer count as "unemployed". Besides, the black unemployment rate had already been falling since 2011, so it's just a continuation of a trend that has nothing to do with Trump.

"What you hear about Pelosi - or Omar for that matter - quite probably doesn't even have a scintilla of factual accuracy to it."

I just know that Rep. Omar is openly anti-Semitic while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is afraid to do anything about it.

One dumb comment doesn't make her anti-Semitic. Criticizing Israeli policy doesn't make her anti-Semitic. Saying the only people she trusts with her money are "the short guys who wear yarmulkes," now, THAT would make her anti-Semitic. But she didn't say that. Trump did.

"Oh, I know. I mean, just look at how much better Bush Sr did the second time around!"

Bush-Senior is one of only three U.S. presidents over the past half-century to run for re-election and win FEWER popular votes the second time around. The other two are Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. Both Bush Sr. & Jimmy had third-party candidates siphoning-off support, and they both lost their re-election bids!

Bush and Carter most likely still would have lost in a two way race. But that's beside the point. And you make "only three" sound like a pretty big deal, but there have only been seven in all in that time. And in no way does that say anything about Trump's chances next time around. Of course, since he lost the popular vote last time, he could very well win more votes this time around and still lose.

Barack Obama had NO third-party challenger to contend with, but he STILL managed to finish with over three-&-a-half-million FEWER popular votes in 2012 than he received in 2008, this despite the U.S. population expanding by approximately 8-million new people during that time period!

He had a sluggish economy to answer for, and he'd wasted a lot of his first two years trying to achieve bipartisan consensus with people like you, which was a genuinely stupid mistake. But he still won.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Indeed. The thing is, he's probably heard it explained a dozen times or more on Fox News how Thurmond was actually protesting the Democrats' racism when he switched parties. No joke, they've been known to claim that!"

Yes, Strom Thurmond was the ONE segregationist Democratic Party U.S. Senator to angrily switch parties during the Civil Rights era - ALL of the other segregationist Democrats remained in that party. The Ku Kux Klan remained solidly Democrat, as well, but as the Democrats steadily weakened in the American south, so did the Klan. Today the Republican Party dominates southern politics, and the KKK is nothing more than a dwindling footnote in our nation's history.

"I'm pretty sure it wasn't Al Gore Sr who said - in 2003, nearly 40 years after the Civil Rights Acts - that he was proud his state had supported Thurmond in 1948."

Al Gore, Sr. had actually VOTED to defeat civil rights legislation along with Strom Thurmond & other senate Democrats, which is something that Trent Lott NEVER did! And when Senator Thurmond passed away in 2003 at the age of one-hundred, having served an amazing 48-years in the U.S. Senate, the person delivering the eulogy at his funeral was then-Democratic Party Senator JOE BIDEN of Delaware! (Is Joe a racist?)

Which do you feel is more profound: a Democrat Senator eulogizing at the funeral of a Republican senator that he served alongside for thirty-years - or the first-ever black president eulogizing at the funeral of a former high-ranking officer in the Ku Kux Klan?

"...putting people on food stamps isn't necessarily a bad thing"

As Ronald Reagan once said: "Democrats measure success by how many people are put ON government assistance, whereas Republicans measure success by how many people NO LONGER REQUIRE government assistance!" The Democrats view people living off of federal government hand-outs as permanent Democratic Party voters! It's why illegals in California support that party!

"Criticizing Israeli policy doesn't make her anti-Semitic. Saying the only people she trusts with her money are "the short guys who wear yarmulkes," now, THAT would make her anti-Semitic. But she didn't say that. Trump did."

Trump's son-in-law is Jewish, as are his grandchildren. The nation of Israel LOVES President Trump. Netanyahu was just re-elected in Israel with strong support from President Trump (or hadn't you noticed?) Yes, the Democratic Party used to enjoy enormous support from Jewish Americans, but thanks to the anti-Semitic Muslims recently voted into the U.S. House of Representatives, that's changing!

"Bush and Carter most likely still would have lost in a two way race."

Carter, definitely. Bush, maybe. The fact is they are two of the three incumbent U.S. presidents this past half-century to finish with FEWER popular votes the second time around. The third member of that unique group is Barack Obama.

69,499,428 - 2008 popular votes cast for Barack Obama
65,918,507 - 2012 popular votes cast for Barack Obama
-3,580,921 - the number of votes Obama LOST when he ran for re-election!

"He had a sluggish economy to answer for, and he'd wasted a lot of his first two years trying to achieve bipartisan consensus with people like you, which was a genuinely stupid mistake. But he still won."

Yes, and Trump "still won" in 2016. The thing about President Obama is that his popularity began to steadily sag when all of the favorable media coverage he'd been receiving non-stop could no longer cover-up the man's gross incompetence and corrupt efforts to politicize the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even the IRS. His campaigning for Hillary Clinton HURT her far more than it helped!

 

[YDB95]

but as the Democrats steadily weakened in the American south, so did the Klan.

Correlation is not causation. The Democrats weakened in the South because racism still sold, and still sells today.

"I'm pretty sure it wasn't Al Gore Sr who said - in 2003, nearly 40 years after the Civil Rights Acts - that he was proud his state had supported Thurmond in 1948."

Al Gore, Sr. had actually VOTED to defeat civil rights legislation along with Strom Thurmond & other senate Democrats, which is something that Trent Lott NEVER did!

Technically accurate - Lott only voted to defeat civil rights legislation with Strom Thurmond and other Senate Republicans.

And when Senator Thurmond passed away in 2003 at the age of one-hundred, having served an amazing 48-years in the U.S. Senate, the person delivering the eulogy at his funeral was then-Democratic Party Senator JOE BIDEN of Delaware! (Is Joe a racist?)

Let's see, did Biden say he was proud of Thurmond's racist presidential campaign? No. No, he didn't. Ergo speaking at Thurmond's funeral - although a mistake in my case - doesn't make him a racist.

Which do you feel is more profound: a Democrat Senator eulogizing at the funeral of a Republican senator that he served alongside for thirty-years - or the first-ever black president eulogizing at the funeral of a former high-ranking officer in the Ku Kux Klan?

While I haven't agreed with much of anything you've ever said here, usually I at least see your point. Here, I don't.

"...putting people on food stamps isn't necessarily a bad thing"

As Ronald Reagan once said: "Democrats measure success by how many people are put ON government assistance, whereas Republicans measure success by how many people NO LONGER REQUIRE government assistance!"

Yes, and then he implemented policies that ensured many, many more people DID require government assistance.

The Democrats view people living off of federal government hand-outs as permanent Democratic Party voters! It's why illegals in California support that party!

Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for public assistance, Dumpington.

"Criticizing Israeli policy doesn't make her anti-Semitic. Saying the only people she trusts with her money are "the short guys who wear yarmulkes," now, THAT would make her anti-Semitic. But she didn't say that. Trump did."

Trump's son-in-law is Jewish, as are his grandchildren. The nation of Israel LOVES President Trump. Netanyahu was just re-elected in Israel with strong support from President Trump (or hadn't you noticed?) Yes, the Democratic Party used to enjoy enormous support from Jewish Americans, but thanks to the anti-Semitic Muslims recently voted into the U.S. House of Representatives, that's changing!

We'll see about that in the next election.

"Bush and Carter most likely still would have lost in a two way race."
Carter, definitely. Bush, maybe. The fact is they are two of the three incumbent U.S. presidents this past half-century to finish with FEWER popular votes the second time around. The third member of that unique group is Barack Obama.

69,499,428 - 2008 popular votes cast for Barack Obama
65,918,507 - 2012 popular votes cast for Barack Obama
-3,580,921 - the number of votes Obama LOST when he ran for re-election!

Which proves absolutely nothing with respect to illegal voting.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "The Democrats weakened in the South because racism still sold, and still sells today."

The state of South Carolina - the same state that sent Strom Thurmond to the U.S. Senate for 48-years - today South Carolina has the ONLY black southern senator in Washington: Tim Scott, a conservative & a Republican! Are you going to say (with a straight face) that it's the LIBERALS in that state that elected him with 60.57% of the vote?

"Lott only voted to defeat civil rights legislation with Strom Thurmond and other Senate Republicans."

How exactly did Trent Lott vote with Al Gore's dad to defeat the '64 & '65 Civil Rights bills when Lott wasn't even elected to the U.S. Senate until November of 1988? Once again, you are confusing Trent Lott with one of the many southern segregationist Democratic Party U.S. Senators!

"Ergo speaking at Thurmond's funeral - although a mistake in my case - doesn't make him a racist."

Okay, so Joe Biden delivering the eulogy at the funeral of a "racist" U.S. Senator in 2003 (you insist that Strom Thurmond was a racist, correct?) - and then in 2010 President Obama delivers the eulogy at the funeral of U.S. Senator (and former KKK "Exalted Cyclops") Robert Byrd - and you say you're fine with all of that because you insist that being a Klansman isn't automatically "racist!" What's next? Kamala Harris giving the eulogy at the funeral of David Duke?

"Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for public assistance, Dumpington."

Seriously? You're going to tell me that California doesn't spend ANY taxpayer money giving freebies to people here in this country illegally? In 2016, the University of California announced that it was appropriating $25.2 million to support undocumented students through 2019!

In 2016, Los Angeles County officials Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis decided to spend $1 million in taxpayer funding to help illegal immigrants fight deportation. What started with in-state tuition for illegals soon became driver's licenses, state-funded healthcare for children, rights and protections adding-up to something that experts liken to a kind of California citizenship. And now they're voting in American elections to keep the gravy train rolling!

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "The Democrats weakened in the South because racism still sold, and still sells today."

The state of South Carolina - the same state that sent Strom Thurmond to the U.S. Senate for 48-years - today South Carolina has the ONLY black southern senator in Washington: Tim Scott, a conservative & a Republican! Are you going to say (with a straight face) that it's the LIBERALS in that state that elected him with 60.57% of the vote?

No. I'm going to say it was Republicans who love any nonwhite candidate who will vote their way, because it makes it easier for people like you to believe you're not racist. But look at Scott's voting record. Also, Scott was appointed to the Senate, and you know how much easier it is for an incumbent to win.

"Lott only voted to defeat civil rights legislation with Strom Thurmond and other Senate Republicans."

How exactly did Trent Lott vote with Al Gore's dad to defeat the '64 & '65 Civil Rights bills when Lott wasn't even elected to the U.S. Senate until November of 1988? Once again, you are confusing Trent Lott with one of the many southern segregationist Democratic Party U.S. Senators!

Nope. Read my comment again. (I'm wondering if I really ought to have the "again" there, but never mind.) Lott was elected to the House in 1972 and moved up to the Senate in 1988, and in BOTH houses he ran up a solidly anti-civil rights record. Thurmond was still in the Senate when Lott got there - and come to think of it, he had a slightly better record on civil rights than Lott did: on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Thurmond voted yes and Lott voted no. When ol' Strom has a better record than you on civil rights, that's saying a lot!

"Ergo speaking at Thurmond's funeral - although a mistake in my case - doesn't make him a racist."

Okay, so Joe Biden delivering the eulogy at the funeral of a "racist" U.S. Senator in 2003 (you insist that Strom Thurmond was a racist, correct?) - and then in 2010 President Obama delivers the eulogy at the funeral of U.S. Senator (and former KKK "Exalted Cyclops") Robert Byrd - and you say you're fine with all of that because you insist that being a Klansman isn't automatically "racist!"

Learn to read already. I did not "insist that being a Klansman isn't automatically "racist!" I said NOT being a Klansman isn't automatically NOT racist, as you seem to think. Those are two very different things.

As for Biden speaking at Thurmond's funeral, well, I don't like it. But whatever you or I may think of Thurmond, he was a close personal friend of Biden's. That's his business, not ours.

What's next? Kamala Harris giving the eulogy at the funeral of David Duke?

Not if Steve Scalise gets the slot first.

"Illegal immigrants aren't eligible for public assistance, Dumpington."

Seriously? You're going to tell me that California doesn't spend ANY taxpayer money giving freebies to people here in this country illegally? In 2016, the University of California announced that it was appropriating $25.2 million to support undocumented students through 2019!

First of all, I was talking about food stamps, Medicaid, public housing, etc. - illegals aren't eligible for any of those. But what you're referring to here is a program designed to provide a path forward for the children of illegal immigrants, who are themselves guilty of nothing.

It would not, incidentally, appear that most California taxpayers have a problem with that, since the state gets bluer almost by the day. And you know what started that trend in the first place? Pete Wilson running for re-election as governor on an immigrant-bashing platform in 1994. He won, but he also created a backlash that continues to this day. I'm hoping Trump will have the same effect nationwide.

In 2016, Los Angeles County officials Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis decided to spend $1 million in taxpayer funding to help illegal immigrants fight deportation.

Actually it was to help accused illegal immigrants get a fair hearing in court. You are familiar with "innocent until proven guilty," aren't you?

What started with in-state tuition for illegals soon became driver's licenses, state-funded healthcare for children, rights and protections adding-up to something that experts liken to a kind of California citizenship.

All of which is intended to provide a path to legitimate citizenship. What's wrong with that? (Remember that except for the Native Americans, most of us are descended from either illegal immigrants or slaves.)

And now they're voting in American elections to keep the gravy train rolling!

And yet you can't point to a single example thereof.

 

[phrodeau]

Did any election officials or judges ever turn up to claim that non-citizens were voting? I'd sure like to hear from some of them about it.

 

[YDB95]

Did any election officials or judges ever turn up to claim that non-citizens were voting? I'd sure like to hear from some of them about it.

I have no doubt whatsoever Dumpington thinks they were in on the conspiracy, and thus didn't want anyone to know about it.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Scott was appointed to the Senate, and you know how much easier it is for an incumbent to win."

On the same day that Donald Trump won the presidency (November 8, 2016), Tim Scott defeated Democrat Thomas Dixon in South Carolina's U.S. Senate race by a margin of 60.57-to-36.93%, with Libertarian candidate Bill Bledsoe finishing a distant third. Amazingly enough, YOU seemingly believe that Tim Scott must be a racist because he's a Republican who didn't support Barack Obama, even though Tim Scott is also a BLACK man!

Antifa says that it's okay to hurl racist insults against black conservatives, and the #BlackLivesMatter movement won't complain about it, either. Both of those groups agree that using fascist political tactics are necessary if we're ever going to turn America into a democratic-socialist nation.

"Thurmond was still in the Senate when Lott got there - and come to think of it, he had a slightly better record on civil rights than Lott did..."

And THAT probably explains why U.S. Senator (and future vice president) Joe Biden delivered the eulogy at the 2003 funeral of Strom Thurmond instead of Trent Lott doing it. Biden & Thurmond no doubt grew very close during their thirty-years together in the senate!

"I said NOT being a Klansman isn't automatically NOT racist..."

And Joe Biden was NEVER a member of the Ku Kux Klan, right? And yet he delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a southern segregationist, correct? I believe I now see what you're hinting at!

"It would not, incidentally, appear that most California taxpayers have a problem with that, since the state gets bluer almost by the day."

Yes, California gets bluer, and deeper in debt, with businesses re-locating by the thousands to red-states like Texas! Think of California as Detroit, if that state was one big & slowly-decaying city!

"Actually it was to help accused illegal immigrants get a fair hearing in court. You are familiar with "innocent until proven guilty," aren't you?"

When it comes to words like "IMMIGRATION," most modern liberal Democrats don't understand the differences between the words "legal" and "illegal!"

"...most of us are descended from either illegal immigrants or slaves."

Yes, and I'd like the ancient Romans to consider paying me reparations for all of the things that my ancestors built!

phrodeau writes: "Did any election officials or judges ever turn up to claim that non-citizens were voting?"

In the Democratic Party-run state of California, illegals can acquire valid drivers' licenses. If you possess a drivers' license in California, you can VOTE, with no questions asked! In many Democratic Party-run cities, so-called "Sanctuary City laws" allow illegals to freely flout U.S. Immigration Laws with impunity! Where Democrats are in power, voter-photo-ID laws are NOT required to participate in American democracy! No Democratic Party-appointed judge is ever going to question any of that, phrodeau!

YDB95 writes: "I have no doubt whatsoever Dumpington thinks they were in on the conspiracy, and thus didn't want anyone to know about it."

With blue-collar & black voters abandoning the ever-shrinking Democratic Party in droves, it only makes sense that liberals would try to bolster their numbers at election time by offering illegals tax-payer-funded freebies in exchange for their votes! There's no conspiracy here! The Democrats are merely DESPERATE!

 

[phrodeau]

Sorry, I don’t believe you. Find a Republican election official who knows that non-citizens vote, and can provide proof.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Find a Republican election official who knows that non-citizens vote, and can provide proof."

Seriously, phrodeau?

That's like me asking you to show me PROOF that underage kids will illegally try to purchase alcohol! You & I BOTH know that a simple solution towards making our election process more secure would be to simply require every voter to show a photo-ID before being allowed to cast a ballot!

But such a thing would HURT Democrats, which is why that party claims that such a common sense solution is somehow racist! You & I both know that it's NOT, but since you support liberal candidates getting elected you're willing to repeat such absurdity with conviction!

Likewise, building a border wall makes perfect SENSE, but since the Democratic Party desperately NEEDS illegals in this country voting for their candidates, they OPPOSE Trump's border wall instead, and make up silly arguments against it, like there's no NEED to protect our southern border!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even wants to abolish I.C.E. - and she's hardly alone in that weird party that you continue to blindly support!

 

[phrodeau]

You know what’s needed for a convincing argument, but all you do is repeat yourself.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "You know what’s needed for a convincing argument, but all you do is repeat yourself."

You leave me no choice but to repeat myself, phrodeau, as you repeatedly deny the obvious.

It's like the Mueller Report coming out and saying that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION - but then the Democrats & their media allies howl in dismay that they need to see MORE, and so Attorney General Barr releases everything that the law allows him to release: NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION - but once again the Democrats & their media allies howl in dismay because they were PROMISED that the Mueller Report would lead to Trump's impeachment, only it won't...

Look, I fully understand your frustration. Trump defeated Hillary in 2016, and your side has been promised over & over again ever since that this president will NEVER complete his first term, only they're not delivering! You have every right to be upset & frustrated! The reason I'm forced to repeat NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION is because that's what the facts say! Trump's not going anywhere!

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Scott was appointed to the Senate, and you know how much easier it is for an incumbent to win."

On the same day that Donald Trump won the presidency (November 8, 2016), Tim Scott defeated Democrat Thomas Dixon in South Carolina's U.S. Senate race by a margin of 60.57-to-36.93%, with Libertarian candidate Bill Bledsoe finishing a distant third. Amazingly enough, YOU seemingly believe that Tim Scott must be a racist because he's a Republican who didn't support Barack Obama, even though Tim Scott is also a BLACK man!

Nope. I never said everyone who opposed Obama was a racist. (I did say YOU were a racist, but that's quite different.)

"Thurmond was still in the Senate when Lott got there - and come to think of it, he had a slightly better record on civil rights than Lott did..."

And THAT probably explains why U.S. Senator (and future vice president) Joe Biden delivered the eulogy at the 2003 funeral of Strom Thurmond instead of Trent Lott doing it. Biden & Thurmond no doubt grew very close during their thirty-years together in the senate!

They did. Biden lost his wife and daughter in a car accident immediately after he was first elected to the Senate in 1972, and Thurmond was very supportive of him in the brutal weeks and months immediately afterward. One can hardly blame Biden for considering him a friend no matter what he thought of his politics.

"I said NOT being a Klansman isn't automatically NOT racist..."

And Joe Biden was NEVER a member of the Ku Kux Klan, right? And yet he delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a southern segregationist, correct? I believe I now see what you're hinting at!

The pathetic thing is, having read all your posts on this thread, this makes perfect sense to me. You're wrong, but I can see all too well what you're getting at.

"It would not, incidentally, appear that most California taxpayers have a problem with that, since the state gets bluer almost by the day."

Yes, California gets bluer, and deeper in debt, with businesses re-locating by the thousands to red-states like Texas! Think of California as Detroit, if that state was one big & slowly-decaying city!

California's economy is in much better shape than Texas', and has been for quite sometime. But yes, businesses can always be counted on to move to states with non-union slave labor.

"Actually it was to help accused illegal immigrants get a fair hearing in court. You are familiar with "innocent until proven guilty," aren't you?"

When it comes to words like "IMMIGRATION," most modern liberal Democrats don't understand the differences between the words "legal" and "illegal!"

Every time you say what liberal Democrats think or believe or understand, well, your own words speak to just how much (or I should say how little) you understand about what we think and know.

"...most of us are descended from either illegal immigrants or slaves."

Yes, and I'd like the ancient Romans to consider paying me reparations for all of the things that my ancestors built!

If you had documented proof that entities that are still in business today had benefitted from unapid labor by your ancestors, I'd be perfectly fine with that. But you don't, we both know that. The same is NOT true of what you're alluding to here, and you know that too.

phrodeau writes: "Did any election officials or judges ever turn up to claim that non-citizens were voting?"

In the Democratic Party-run state of California, illegals can acquire valid drivers' licenses. If you possess a drivers' license in California, you can VOTE, with no questions asked!

Not true - and if it WERE true, wouldn't that mean your beloved Voter ID law wouldn't work anyway?

You can't just show up and vote, no questions asked, not in any state. (That used to be the case in North Dakota, but they changed the law recently because too many Native Americans were voting Democratic.) You have to give them your name, and if that name isn't on the rolls, you don't get to vote. And guess what? If you're not a citizen, you don't get to vote, not even if you're a legal immigrant.

In many Democratic Party-run cities, so-called "Sanctuary City laws" allow illegals to freely flout U.S. Immigration Laws with impunity!

That's not what sanctuary city laws are about at all. I guess technically what you said is true, but it would be every bit as true to say sanctuary city laws provide for treating human beings like human beings, ensuring immigrants are willing to report crimes against them without fear of punishing the victim, and - crucially these days - preventing families from being ripped apart and children stored in cages.

Where Democrats are in power, voter-photo-ID laws are NOT required to participate in American democracy! No Democratic Party-appointed judge is ever going to question any of that, phrodeau!

Wait a minute, I'm confused here. Aren't the Democrats in bed with the Klan? You can't have it both ways, Dumpington.

YDB95 writes: "I have no doubt whatsoever Dumpington thinks they were in on the conspiracy, and thus didn't want anyone to know about it."

With blue-collar & black voters abandoning the ever-shrinking Democratic Party in droves, it only makes sense that liberals would try to bolster their numbers at election time by offering illegals tax-payer-funded freebies in exchange for their votes! There's no conspiracy here! The Democrats are merely DESPERATE!

You are aware that illegal immigrants pay taxes too, aren't you? Except for the ones who are paid under the table, like Trump's servants.

phrodeau writes: "Find a Republican election official who knows that non-citizens vote, and can provide proof."

Seriously, phrodeau?

That's like me asking you to show me PROOF that underage kids will illegally try to purchase alcohol!

No, it isn't. It's extremely easy to find cases of kids trying to buy beer. Despite your ranting and raving, there are very, very few known cases of illegals trying to vote - and they usually get caught when it does happen.

You & I BOTH know that a simple solution towards making our election process more secure would be to simply require every voter to show a photo-ID before being allowed to cast a ballot!

Make it easier for all citizens to get a photo ID, and that'd be fine. But the same people pushing the ID laws are also making it more difficult - with "almost surgical precision" according to one case - for US citizens to get an ID.

Likewise, building a border wall makes perfect SENSE, but since the Democratic Party desperately NEEDS illegals in this country voting for their candidates, they OPPOSE Trump's border wall instead, and make up silly arguments against it, like there's no NEED to protect our southern border!

You really just can't stand the fact that our country is becoming more diverse and more tolerant, can you? Wow.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even wants to abolish I.C.E. - and she's hardly alone in that weird party that you continue to blindly support!

Blindly? No. Humanely. I don't see how any self-respecting American would NOT want to abolish an organization with so many abuses to its name. Yes, we do need to regulate immigration, but we also have to respect the dignity of all human beings, and ICE has proven it can't do both.

 

[YDB95]

By the way, Dumpington, have you ever voted in California? You've mentioned living in several Southern states but nowhere else, which means you don't know firsthand how it works in California. Admittedly I don't either, so I looked it up.

When you register to vote in California, you need some form of ID including a social security card (which illegal immigrants wouldn't have) or, yes, a driver's license. If you don't provide any ID with your registration, you will be asked for it the fist time you vote. (This was also the case in Colorado when I lived there, although you didn't need a photo ID - a utility bill sufficed.)

It is true that illegal immigrants can get driver's licenses in California. But they will not be automatically registered to vote when they get their licenses, nor will they be able to show up at the polls and vote with their licenses. California has automatic voter registration for citizens when they get a license, but the program used by the DMV prevents voter registration for anyone who isn't eligible for it. On the interface where the DMV staff normally enter the voter registration information, the fields are greyed out and can't be populated even if the staffer wants to do so.

In other words, a driver's license alone won't let you vote in California.

 

[Articulate_and_Analytical]

Especially since illegals can't get the vote and no matter of Trumpette lies have shown that they have or could.

Lying seems to be the #1 tool in the Republican toolbox.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Nope. I never said everyone who opposed Obama was a racist. (I did say YOU were a racist, but that's quite different.)"

THERE, you've just done it again! Anybody who disgrees with your political beliefs is a RACIST! You're cheapening the use of that word! "Everybody who disagrees with me is Hitler!" I mean, seriously - how childish is that?

"One can hardly blame Biden for considering him a friend no matter what he thought of his politics."

Yeah, and Robert Byrd invited a young Barack Obama to a few of his Klan meetings. So it's perfectly understandable that President Obama would want to deliver the eulogy at Byrd's funeral, no matter what he thought of his politics!

"California's economy is in much better shape than Texas', and has been for quite sometime."

What a load of crap! Next you'll be telling me that Detroit is in much better shape than Dallas or Houston! When your city if forced to hire people to remove human excrement from the city sidewalks (see: San Francisco), you've got some SERIOUS problems!

"Every time you say what liberal Democrats think or believe or understand..."

This, coming from a person who calls other people "racists" for not agreeing with them.

"Not true - and if it WERE true, wouldn't that mean your beloved Voter ID law wouldn't work anyway?"

The modern Democratic Party opposes voter-photo-ID laws because they fear that they WILL WORK - and if that happens, Democrat candidates LOSE elections!

"That's not what sanctuary city laws are about at all."

Sanctuary City laws are a way for the modern Democratic Party to harvest votes by ignoring our nation's immigration laws, pure & simple!

"Aren't the Democrats in bed with the Klan?"

All signs point to "YES" - although the modern KKK prefers going by the name of "Antifa!"

"You are aware that illegal immigrants pay taxes too, aren't you?"

Who cares? When a drug dealer uses stolen money to purchase an expensive new car he pays the sales tax for that automobile! Does that somehow make him a model citizen?

"You really just can't stand the fact that our country is becoming more diverse and more tolerant, can you? Wow. "

And YOU don't understand the difference between the words "LEGAL" and "ILLEGAL!" - Wow!

"I don't see how any self-respecting American would NOT want to abolish an organization with so many abuses to its name. Yes, we do need to regulate immigration, but we also have to respect the dignity of all human beings, and ICE has proven it can't do both."

TRANSLATION: As long as illegals can be bribed with taxpayer-funded freebies to support Democrat candidates at election time, they should be allowed to freely enter this country and vote in our elections (and NOT just in California, either!) And if we DON'T like our nation's immigration laws, we should be allowed to openly IGNORE them!

Articulate and Analytical writes: "Lying seems to be the #1 tool in the Republican toolbox."

Yeah, and who was that Republican president impeached for lying-under-oath while being investigated for sexual harrassment? Wasn't that BILL CLINTON? And which Republican president repeated those enormous lies over & over... "If you like your doctor, you can KEEP him - period... and if you like your current health care plan, you can KEEP it - period!" Oh yeah, I remember now - that was BARACK OBAMA!

 

[phrodeau]

When a drug dealer uses stolen money to purchase an expensive new car he pays the sales tax for that automobile!

Got any examples of this?

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Got any examples of this?"

Seriously, phrodeau? You need this EXPLAINED to you?

Okay, here goes... a drug dealer makes millions of dollars illegally importing cocaine and other illicit drugs into the United States, which he then sells to drug-users, reaping enormous profits.

He wants to drive an expensive car - let's say a Cadillac Escalade - and so he purchases one for, let's say $75-thousand. If the sales tax for such a purchase is 5%, he's going to be paying $3,750 to the government! Of course, I suppose he could steal somebody else's car, but why would such a person risk being picked-up & jailed for auto-theft when he's making MILLIONS of dollars moving drugs?

Ditto for that mansion on the beach that he's got his eye on - if he purchases one of those he's going to end up paying a pretty sizeable sales-tax & property tax bill, am I right? But he's STILL a criminal drug-dealer, and we DON'T applaud him because he's paying taxes!

 

[phrodeau]

phrodeau writes: "Got any examples of this?"

Seriously, phrodeau? You need this EXPLAINED to you?

Okay, here goes... a drug dealer makes millions of dollars illegally importing cocaine and other illicit drugs into the United States, which he then sells to drug-users, reaping enormous profits.

He wants to drive an expensive car - let's say a Cadillac Escalade - and so he purchases one for, let's say $75-thousand. If the sales tax for such a purchase is 5%, he's going to be paying $3,750 to the government! Of course, I suppose he could steal somebody else's car, but why would such a person risk being picked-up & jailed for auto-theft when he's making MILLIONS of dollars moving drugs?

Ditto for that mansion on the beach that he's got his eye on - if he purchases one of those he's going to end up paying a pretty sizeable sales-tax & property tax bill, am I right? But he's STILL a criminal drug-dealer, and we DON'T applaud him because he's paying taxes!

You said it was stolen money. Large cash transactions get reported. Where’s the example I asked you for?