3 ms·

I think you're the one making falsehoods.. 1. Apportionment for both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College absolutely includes undocumented im

I think you're the one making falsehoods.. 1. Apportionment for both the House of Representatives and the Electoral College absolutely includes undocumented immigrants and all other non-citizens. Their presence alone allocates more electoral weight to blue states where they congregate. 2. They may not vote immediately but over time they will marry/integrate and ultimately will vote. And crucially their children will vote. In the medium term voter demographics will change radically if Democrat corruption is allowed to proceed 3. As soon as they gain power again the Democrats will take whatever steps necessary to speed up the process of getting them on the electoral role. This will be done under the guise of "compassion" but will really be about the pursuit of power. California used to be a red state but was turned blue through immigration. The vast majority of Democrats voted against requiring proof of citizenship to vote. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-republican-bill-requiring-voters-provide-proof-of-u-s-citizenship https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-passes-republica...

shadowgovt 1y ago
Ah, you meant apportionment, not demographics. You are correct about apportionment. So your argument is that Democrats were only gentle on immigration because they wanted the voters in the States that would get those new representatives to like their party? If so, it raises the question... ... Why didn't the Republicans do the same? Seems like a good idea. Of course, the GOP pursuing good ideas may assume competence, something neither of us are assuming. I take your lack of defense of my criticism of this administration's competence as agreement. (Different topic, but the Democrats were right to vote against proof of citizenship. You know who can't prove citizenship? My elderly mother-in-law who's born in the US and lived here her whole life. She doesn't deserve to be disenfranchised because her family was bad at keeping documentation. The people who get denied the vote when we start playing "papers please" at the polls are American citizens, not illegal immigrants).
- lazyeye 1y ago
  Why didn't the Republicans do the same? You're asking why the Republicans aren't corrupt like the Dems? I don't know, you'll have to ask the Dems. We just have to deal with the consequences. And in terms of your "criticism" of their competence, it was just a vague smear with nothing of substance behind it. Not worth acknowledging really, particularly if your benchmark is the Biden/Harris admin where we had an autopen president in the early stages of dementia and a vice-president (the border czar!) so incompetent she was too scared to go on podcasts. Strange how the Dems always seem to find "justifications" to reduce election integrity whether it's through illegal immigration or lax election laws (promoting election fraud, ballot harvesting etc), whilst lecturing everybody about the need to "protect democracy".
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    It's not "corrupt" to serve the people. We have people living in this country for multiple decades for whom there are obstacles to citizenship. You've noted yourself it's good strategy (from numbers alone) to both help them live here and make them citizens. ... why didn't the Republicans do so? That doesn't sound like corruption, that sounds like good statesmanship. And those "lax" election laws have worked for decades upon decades; the burden of proof is upon critics to show non-citizens are voting and the numbers just aren't there. Would you like some more lawsuits to prove that fact out, or are the ones the current President already filed (and then went on to win this ostensibly corrupt electoral system anyway) enough? Not interested in debating that topic since it's dead and buried in the ground. Besides, the premise is flawed. it's not "reduction of election integrity" to make the government representative of the people who live here.
    - lazyeye 1y ago
      I just feel stupid having to argue the simple commonsense that it is the citizens only that should be allowed to vote, particularly after the influx of 10 million+ (likely much more) illegals in the last 4 years of the Biden admin. You appear to have bookmarked my comments page, which you perhaps check regularly? I'm sure I'm not the only one. Could you do me a big favour? Could you delete my bookmark and not reply to my comments any more. I would really appreciate this.
      - shadowgovt 1y ago
        Neither of us are saying non-citizens should be allowed to vote. My concern is the likelihood that requiring additional documentation not previously required deprives citizens the right to vote. Because it does (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-... , https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/ https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/). ... We do seem to disagree on whether the right approach to non-citizens living among us for decades is to try to suddenly send them away or to figure out why they're still non-citizens and maybe fix that though. "Give me your tired, your poor," etc. (It's not so much a bookmark as I keep checking replies to my comments and see you reply to them, then I chase that thread to see if you're carrying the same ideas elsewhere. Perhaps both of us could stand to keep the topics we discuss in this forum more on the topics of technology, business, and hacking.)

shadowgovt 1y ago

Ah, you meant apportionment, not demographics. You are correct about apportionment. So your argument is that Democrats were only gentle on immigration because they wanted the voters in the States that would get those new representatives to like their party? If so, it raises the question... ... Why didn't the Republicans do the same? Seems like a good idea. Of course, the GOP pursuing good ideas may assume competence, something neither of us are assuming. I take your lack of defense of my criticism of this administration's competence as agreement. (Different topic, but the Democrats were right to vote against proof of citizenship. You know who can't prove citizenship? My elderly mother-in-law who's born in the US and lived here her whole life. She doesn't deserve to be disenfranchised because her family was bad at keeping documentation. The people who get denied the vote when we start playing "papers please" at the polls are American citizens, not illegal immigrants).

lazyeye 1y ago
Why didn't the Republicans do the same? You're asking why the Republicans aren't corrupt like the Dems? I don't know, you'll have to ask the Dems. We just have to deal with the consequences. And in terms of your "criticism" of their competence, it was just a vague smear with nothing of substance behind it. Not worth acknowledging really, particularly if your benchmark is the Biden/Harris admin where we had an autopen president in the early stages of dementia and a vice-president (the border czar!) so incompetent she was too scared to go on podcasts. Strange how the Dems always seem to find "justifications" to reduce election integrity whether it's through illegal immigration or lax election laws (promoting election fraud, ballot harvesting etc), whilst lecturing everybody about the need to "protect democracy".
- shadowgovt 1y ago
  It's not "corrupt" to serve the people. We have people living in this country for multiple decades for whom there are obstacles to citizenship. You've noted yourself it's good strategy (from numbers alone) to both help them live here and make them citizens. ... why didn't the Republicans do so? That doesn't sound like corruption, that sounds like good statesmanship. And those "lax" election laws have worked for decades upon decades; the burden of proof is upon critics to show non-citizens are voting and the numbers just aren't there. Would you like some more lawsuits to prove that fact out, or are the ones the current President already filed (and then went on to win this ostensibly corrupt electoral system anyway) enough? Not interested in debating that topic since it's dead and buried in the ground. Besides, the premise is flawed. it's not "reduction of election integrity" to make the government representative of the people who live here.
  - lazyeye 1y ago
    I just feel stupid having to argue the simple commonsense that it is the citizens only that should be allowed to vote, particularly after the influx of 10 million+ (likely much more) illegals in the last 4 years of the Biden admin. You appear to have bookmarked my comments page, which you perhaps check regularly? I'm sure I'm not the only one. Could you do me a big favour? Could you delete my bookmark and not reply to my comments any more. I would really appreciate this.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      Neither of us are saying non-citizens should be allowed to vote. My concern is the likelihood that requiring additional documentation not previously required deprives citizens the right to vote. Because it does (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-disenfranchise-millions-of-citizens/ https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-would-... , https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/ https://19thnews.org/2025/03/save-act-voting-married-women/). ... We do seem to disagree on whether the right approach to non-citizens living among us for decades is to try to suddenly send them away or to figure out why they're still non-citizens and maybe fix that though. "Give me your tired, your poor," etc. (It's not so much a bookmark as I keep checking replies to my comments and see you reply to them, then I chase that thread to see if you're carrying the same ideas elsewhere. Perhaps both of us could stand to keep the topics we discuss in this forum more on the topics of technology, business, and hacking.)