When one equates promotion of a voter fraud investigation to white supremacy, one is saying it is racist.
One would definitely be full of shit.
Chuckie Schumer is definitely full of shit.
You can equate whatever you want but it does not change the fact that Schumer never said that stopping illegals from voting is racist.
Correct. He said that if Trump continues to investigate voter fraud (illegal aliens voting, dead people voting, multiple votes by one person, etc.) heâs promoting white supremacy.
Big differenceâŚmy ass!
Chuckie Schumer is full of shit.
Trump has claimed that voter fraud in 2016 ran into millions which is why he set up the
Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017. Trump shut this down in 2018 which interestingly coincided with a court order stating the findings and working documents be shared with the Democratic members of the commission.
Why would a commission want to exclude some members? Why have those people as part of the commission in the first place if they were going to be excluded.
Personally I think Trump realized that creating a report based on falsehoods and disinformation was not going to be as easy as he thought so he called it a day.
Any electoral system has fraud but there is no evidence circumstantial or factual that fraud has been on a scale to impact the result of an election.
Back to the original point no one can show me where Schumer said it was racist to only allow Americans to vote. The claim was not that he implied this or equated it but that he said it.
Trump shut down the commission because several states refused to provide the required data. Therefore the commission was useless.
The panel was shut down because the states were refusing to provide the registration information to them for their analysis.
The more educated the more socially liberal. We now have social liberals and social conservatives. Fiscal conservatism died with the advent of Reagan who exploded the national debt, and debt and deficits is all thatâs left and worsening regardless of whoâs in control. In fact one of Trumpâs worst legacies will be his debt and record deficits, both of which he pledged to eliminate when talk was easy
Just going back over this discussion, I came across this from @Montecristo.
I believe what is said is correct.
Both Republicans and Democrats want lots of government spending, neither side is very keen on raising taxes, so the money has to be borrowed (or â God forbid, printed). If the economy were growing, and if the borrowed money contributed to this, then it could be paid back in the future â the rational reason to borrow. But itâs not. So we are probaby headed for some sort of major shock, especially with the growth of entitlements. An extension of Medicare will speed things up.
As for more educated people being more socially liberal, this is also true. The more educated you are, the more able you are to be an individualist. You have a higher income, you can learn new skills, you are geographically mobile. Youâll probably work far from where you were born, at least if you were born in a small town. You are an âanywhereâ.
As you go down the educational scale ⌠from the lawyers and doctors, to the website designers and NGO administrators and teachers and nurses, to the welders and electricians and machinists and hairdressers, to the truck drivers and waitresses, to the shelf-stackers ⌠you find, increasingly, people who are not good at, say, learning a new skill, or picking up stakes and re-locating.
They canât move to Hong Kong if a new position opens up there. If M13 starts operations near them, itâs harder for them to sell up and move. They are more integrated into their local community, typically a smaller town. They are more likely to attend a church and have friends they went to school with. They are more socially conservative, because it make sense to be more socially conservative.
Their world works for them and it hasnât been a bad one. They donât see why their children should be exposed to drag queens or canvassed for possible gender-changes. They donât think highly of flag-burners, because they donât see the flag-burners as people who care about ordinary people. They, or their parents or grandparents, may have experienced hard times, but they didnât go on welfare.
The liberal elite in California live in gated communities. Their friends âof colorâ and immigrant acquaintances are likely to be an Indian database expert, or a Liberian graphics designer. If they found their neighborhood becoming Black, they joined the âwhite flightâ.
This is not how working class white people are likely to experience Blacks and Hispanics, although outright conscious racism of the hate-all-Xs sort has been officially taboo in America for fifty years, and this has sunk in pretty deep. So has social tolerance.
My relatives in Texas fit the description of the socially-conservative âdeplorablesâ, sneered at by educated liberals, who see them as their social inferiors. None of them have been to college. One has a job cleaning animal cages at a research center â he could probably get welfare but no one in our family would dream of that. Another is an electrician who runined his knees crawling around in attics and now works at B&Q. (There is a welfare-receiving Black Sheep in the family, disdained by everyone. Heâs actually probably the smartest guy in the whole family. He just doesnât like to work.)
All were Democrats until the early 70s. Some supported Perot in 1992, and Ted Cruz in the primaries. Military service was the norm in their generation, and that was probably where they met Black people for the first time. (Mexican-Americans are very common in their part of the world, though.)
They are not racists in the real meaning of the term â they work with Mexican Americans daily. However, they are likely to utter some truths â or at least things they believe are true, which I believe are likely â that liberals would want to suppress â such as the number of illegals driving without insurance⌠They would probably be uncomfortable in the presence of an open homosexual or transgender, but would, I am sure, be polite and sympathetic, provided they werenât hectored or scolded.
But the non-racism and tolerance is not ideological. Itâs an acquired characteristic. Once, at a family dinner party, one of them used the âN-wordâ â deliberately, to get a rise out us, I think. There was a frozen silence, frowns of disapproval, and he didnât say it again.
Theyâre for the minimum wage and social security. Some attend church regularly, others not.
I think they have a much deeper understanding of society, and how to keep it running, than the typical graduate of an Ivy League philosophy department, especially one steeped in Post-modernism.
In the 20th Century, the default position of the European intellectuals was some form of pro-Soviet sympathy. Many of the greatest scientific minds were Communist Party members or sympathyzers, especially in France. Not the French peasants, who knew how to prune trees and sow wheat, but could not solve a second-order partial differential equation to save their lives.
When the French overthrow their oppressive monarchy in 1789, some clever provincial lawyers came to the helm of society. They were far more educated than the average French peasant, and had some nice-sounding ideas about how to make a good society, based on Reason. But as Pascal said, the heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing. Those educated lawyers violated the reasons of the heart, and it all ended very badly, not least of all for most of them.
If I had been around at the start of the French Revolution, with what I â we â know about that Revolution, I would have recommended that those educated lawyers be sent back home to carry on writing mortgages, and a committee of shrewd old peasants be put in charge. Despite their lack of formal education, and relative social illiberalism.
Another long winded post I can largely agree with. Thanks for the detailed family history/update tooâŚ
The war continues on. I hope and pray we can win some culture changing seats this November
Good luckâŚnot!
1234567890
